Charlene Rosa v. State of Florida

• Court: Supreme Court of Florida
• Decided: February 13, 2025
• Docket: SC2024-1315
• Status: Published

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida ____________

No. SC2024-1315 ____________

CHARLENE ROSA, Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

February 13, 2025

PER CURIAM.

Charlene Rosa, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se

petition to invoke this Court’s all writs jurisdiction.1 On November

25, 2024, we dismissed the instant petition and expressly retained

jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against Rosa. Rosa v.

State, 2024 WL 4880351 (Fla. Nov. 25, 2024); see Fla. R. App. P.

9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion). We now find that Rosa has

failed to show cause why she should not be barred, and we sanction

her as set forth below.

1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(7), Fla. Const. Rosa was convicted in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth

Judicial Circuit (Broward County) of first-degree murder in case

number 062004CF010827A88810. She was sentenced to life

imprisonment without the possibility of parole on July 5, 2007. The

Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and

sentence in an authored opinion on January 27, 2010. Rosa v.

State, 27 So. 3d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Since being sentenced in

2007, Rosa has demonstrated a pattern of vexatious filing of

meritless pro se requests for relief related to case number

062004CF010827A88810. Rosa has also sought relief related to

case number 062005CF014414A88810 despite that case having

been nolle prossed in June of 2007. In 2019, the Fourth District

Court of Appeal issued an order barring Petitioner from filing any

further pro se pleadings. Rosa v. State, No. 4D19-2004 (Fla. 4th

DCA Oct. 11, 2019). And on March 5, 2024, the trial court issued

an order barring Petitioner from filing further pro se pleadings in

case numbers 062004CF010827A88810 and

062005CF014414A88810.

-2- Including the petition in the instant case, Rosa has filed fifteen

pro se petitions with this Court since 2011. 2 The Court has never

granted Rosa the relief sought in any of her filings here; each of the

petitions was dismissed, denied, or transferred. Her petition in this

case is no exception. Rosa challenged her conviction and sentence

on grounds of trial court error and ineffective assistance of counsel.

She indicated that these claims had been raised without success in

previous postconviction challenges below, and she conceded that

she has been barred from filing further pro se pleadings by both the

circuit court and the Fourth District. The Court dismissed the

petition and directed Rosa to show cause why she should not be

barred from filing any further pro se requests for relief and referred

to the Department of Corrections for possible disciplinary action

pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2024).

In response to this Court’s show cause order, Rosa repeats

much of the argument found in her petition. She asserts that she

has been seeking relief from injustice for nineteen years and thus

all her pleadings had merit. Rosa fails to acknowledge the frivolous

2. See Rosa v. State, 2024 WL 4880351 (Fla. Nov. 25, 2024).

-3- nature of her repeated filings and expresses no remorse for her

repeated misuse of this Court’s limited judicial resources. In fact,

Rosa contends she should not be sanctioned by this Court in order

to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice.

Upon consideration of Rosa’s response, we find that she has

failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

Therefore, based on Rosa’s extensive history of filing pro se petitions

and requests for relief that were meritless or otherwise

inappropriate for this Court’s review, we now find that she has

abused the Court’s limited judicial resources. See Pettway v.

McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20, 22 (Fla. 2008) (explaining that this Court

has previously “exercised the inherent judicial authority to sanction

an abusive litigant” and that “[o]ne justification for such a sanction

lies in the protection of the rights of others to have the Court

conduct timely reviews of their legitimate filings”). If no action is

taken, Rosa will continue to burden the Court’s resources. We

further conclude that Rosa’s all writs petition filed in this case is a

frivolous proceeding brought before the Court by a state prisoner.

See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat.

-4- Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any

future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Charlene

Rosa that are related to case numbers 062004CF010827A88810

and 062005CF014414A88810, unless such filings are signed by a

member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Furthermore, because

we have found Rosa’s petition to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of

this Court, pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes, to

forward a copy of this opinion to the Florida Department of

Corrections’ institution or facility in which Rosa is incarcerated.

No motion for rehearing or clarification will be considered by

this Court.

It is so ordered.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.

Original Proceeding – All Writs

Charlene Rosa, pro se, Ocala, Florida,

for Petitioner

No appearance for Respondent

-5-