JEFFERSON V. JONES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 4, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D15-2124 Lower Tribunal Nos. 93-14792-B; 94-39169; 94-39724; 94-40672; 94-40673; 95-8824; 95-8825; 95-8827; 95-13969; 95-13970; 95-14776; 95-15140; 95-16068; 95-16070 ________________ Cedric Jefferson, etc., Petitioner, vs. Julie Jones, etc., Respondent. A case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus. Cedric Jefferson, etc., in proper person. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for respondent. Before WELLS, SHEPHERD and LOGUE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Cedric Jefferson, a/k/a Selvin Mathew, David Pierre, Willie Toby, Corey Mathew and Sylvain Plantin, petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus. We deny Petitioner’s writ without further discussion and issue the following order to show cause. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE On thirty-two prior occasions since 1998,1 Petitioner has unsuccessfully sought appellate review of the legality of his current sentence. Nevertheless, he returns to this court for the thirty-third time, once again seeking the same relief upon claims that have been previously raised, determined on the merits, and affirmed on appeal. While pro se parties must be afforded a genuine and adequate opportunity to exercise their constitutional right of access to the courts, that right is not unrestricted. The right to proceed pro se may be forfeited where it is determined, after proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, that the party has abused the judicial process by the continued filing of successive or meritless collateral claims in a criminal proceeding. State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999). As our Appeal Case Numbers: 3D98-1224, 3D99-2834, 3D99-2395, 3D01-2851, 3D011389, 3D01-1612, 3D02-871, 3D03-801, 3D04-266, 3D04-401, 3D06-1392, 3D062548, 3D07-1307, 3D08-209, 3D08-358, 3D08-2906, 3D09-595, 3D09-2896, 3D09-3026, 3D10-3358, 3D11-1707, 3D11-1746, 3D11-2983, 3D11-3288, 3D12488, 3D12-2210, 3D12-2372, 3D12-2845, 3D13-3077, 3D13-1583, 3D14-2575, and 3D15-2230 2 1 sister court aptly stated, there comes a point when “enough is enough.” Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Therefore, Petitioner is ordered to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to his conviction, judgment, and sentence in case numbers 93-1472-B, 9439169, 94-39724, 94-40672, 94-40673, 95-8824, 95-8825, 95-8827, 95-13969, 9513970, 95-14776, 95-15140, 95-16068, 95-16070. Absent a showing of good cause, we intend to direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept any further filings relating to case numbers previously enumerated, unless they have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a licensed member of the Florida Bar in good standing. Petition denied; show cause order issued. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
