Wilmario Trueblood vs Second Judicial Circuit Court, Leon County, Florida, and State of Florida
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D20-2721 _____________________________ WILMARIO TRUEBLOOD, Petitioner, v. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA, and STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents. _____________________________ Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction. July 13, 2021 PER CURIAM. Petitioner seeks certiorari relief for the trial court’s dismissal of his Motion for Expressed and Distinct Demand for Performance Before Mandamus. We dismiss his petition. See All About Cruises, Inc. v. Cruise Options, Inc., 889 So. 2d 905, 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“[T]his court generally will not exercise its certiorari review where the objection is that the requested production is vague, overbroad, and irrelevant.”); cf. Brown v. Vocelle, 630 So. 2d 1257, 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (“A record need not be provided merely to allow a prisoner to comb through it with the hope of discovering some flaw. Until the trial court has before it a motion attacking the judgment or sentence to which transcripts may be relevant, the trial court has no duty to rule on the premature motion, and mandamus will not be granted if its issuance would prove unavailing.”). Additionally, this Court’s records reflect that, in addition to this case, Petitioner has filed at least seven prior postconviction petitions and appeals in this Court related to Leon County Circuit Court case numbers 2013-CF-0916 and 2013-CF-0915: 1D20-1318, 1D20-1050, 1D19-3560, 1D17-4307/4308, 1D14-2477/2478, 1D203205, 1D20-2600. These cases reveal a history of filing frivolous postconviction motions and petitions. The courts have a responsibility to ensure every citizen’s right of access to the courts. See Peterson v. State, 817 So. 2d 838, 840 (Fla. 2002); In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989). Because frivolous motions and petitions use limited judicial resources, placing an unnecessary burden on the courts and the public, a bar on pro se filing is sometimes required for the “protection of the rights of others to have the Court conduct timely reviews of their legitimate filings.” Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20, 22 (Fla. 2008); see also Peterson, 817 So. 2d at 840 (“This Court has a responsibility to ensure every citizen’s right of access to the courts . . . A limitation on [the petitioner’s] ability to file would further the constitutional right to access for other litigants because it would permit this Court to devote its finite resources to the consideration of legitimate claims filed by others.”). Accordingly, pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999), Petitioner shall show cause within 20 days of the date of this opinion why he should not be barred from filing further pro se filings in this Court. Petitioner is advised that the failure to comply with the terms of this opinion within the time allowed may result in the imposition of sanctions without further opportunity to be heard. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410. DISMISSED. ROBERTS, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., concur. 2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ Wilmario Trueblood, pro se, Petitioner. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Robert Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondents. 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.
