Xavier D. Williams v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Xavier D. Williams v. State of Florida

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 30, 2026

Docket5D2025-2180

StatusPublished

This text of Xavier D. Williams v. State of Florida (Xavier D. Williams v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Xavier D. Williams v. State of Florida, (Fla. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 5D2025-2180 LT Case No. 16-2011-CF-003658-A _____________________________

XAVIER D. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent. _____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, A Case of Original Jurisdiction.

Xavier D. Williams, Arcadia, pro se.

No Appearance for Respondent.

January 30, 2026

PER CURIAM.

Due to Petitioner’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment and sentence in Duval County Circuit Court Case No. 16-2011-CF-003658-A, this Court issued an order directing Petitioner to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Having carefully considered the response and finding it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, we conclude that Petitioner is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings.

In order to conserve judicial resources, Petitioner is prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerning Duval County Circuit Court Case No. 16-2011-CF- 003658-A. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the referenced case. The Clerk will summarily reject any future filings regarding the referenced case unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary proceedings. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2020); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

SANCTIONS IMPOSED.

EDWARDS, HARRIS, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 5D2025-2180 LT Case No. 16-2011-CF-003658-A _____________________________

XAVIER D. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent. _____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, A Case of Original Jurisdiction.

Xavier D. Williams, Arcadia, pro se.

No Appearance for Respondent.

January 30, 2026

PER CURIAM.

Due to Petitioner’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment and sentence in Duval County Circuit Court Case No. 16-2011-CF-003658-A, this Court issued an order directing Petitioner to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Having carefully considered the response and finding it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, we conclude that Petitioner is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings.

In order to conserve judicial resources, Petitioner is prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerning Duval County Circuit Court Case No. 16-2011-CF- 003658-A. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the referenced case. The Clerk will summarily reject any future filings regarding the referenced case unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary proceedings. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2020); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

SANCTIONS IMPOSED.

EDWARDS, HARRIS, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Xavier D. Williams v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/xavier-d-williams-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack