Todd E. Watson v. Shevaun Harris, etc.
This text of Todd E. Watson v. Shevaun Harris, etc. (Todd E. Watson v. Shevaun Harris, etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Supreme Court of Florida ____________
No. SC2023-0980 ____________
TODD E. WATSON, Petitioner,
vs.
SHEVAUN HARRIS, etc., Respondents.
January 11, 2024
PER CURIAM.
Todd E. Watson, an inmate in state custody, filed a pro se
petition for writ of habeas corpus.1 On September 26, 2023, we
denied the instant petition and expressly retained jurisdiction to
pursue possible sanctions against Petitioner. Watson v. Harris, No.
SC2023-0980, 2023 WL 6236809 (Fla. Sept. 26, 2023); see Fla. R.
App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion). We now find that
Petitioner has failed to show cause why he should not be barred,
and we sanction him as set forth below.
1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. Petitioner was convicted in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in
and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, case number
132017CF0187890001XX of two counts of threats/extortion and
five counts of stalking and sentenced to 364 days imprisonment
followed by a five-year probationary period. Since being sentenced
in 2019, Petitioner has demonstrated a pattern of vexatious filing of
meritless pro se requests for relief related to case number
132017CF0187890001XX.
Including the petition in the instant case, Petitioner has filed
eight pro se petitions with this Court. The Court has never granted
Petitioner the relief sought in any of his filings here; each of the
petitions was dismissed, denied, or transferred. His petition in this
case is no exception. Petitioner argued that the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit lacked jurisdiction to accept his plea because the executive
order transferring jurisdiction had expired. On September 26,
2023, we denied the instant petition as repetitive pursuant to Topps
v. State, 865 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2004), as Petitioner had previously
raised this exact claim in a prior habeas petition filed with the
Court. See Watson v. Harris, No. SC2023-0980, 2023 WL 6236809
-2- (Fla. Sept. 26, 2023) (citing Watson v. Reyes, No. SC2023-0510,
2023 WL 4094719 (Fla. June 21, 2023)).
In response to this Court’s show cause order, Petitioner again
argued that the Eleventh Judicial Circuit lacked jurisdiction to
accept his plea because the executive order transferring jurisdiction
had expired.
Upon consideration of Petitioner’s response, we find that he
has failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.
Therefore, based on Petitioner’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 he 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, Petitioner will continue to burden the Court’s resources. We
further conclude that Petitioner’s habeas petition filed in this case
-3- is a frivolous proceeding brought before the Court by a state
prisoner. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2023).
Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of this Court to reject any
future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Todd E.
Watson that are related to case number 132017CF0187890001XX,
unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The
Florida Bar. Furthermore, because we have found Petitioner’s
petition to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, pursuant
to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2023), to forward a copy of
this opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections’ institution or
facility in which Petitioner is incarcerated.
No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by
this Court.
It is so ordered.
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.
Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus
Todd E. Watson, pro se, Chattahoochee, Florida,
for Petitioner
No appearance for Respondents
-4-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Todd E. Watson v. Shevaun Harris, etc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/todd-e-watson-v-shevaun-harris-etc-fla-2024.