DERRICK JENKINS v. MARK INCH, Etc.
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledOctober 21, 2020
Docket3D20-0147
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 21, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-0147
Lower Tribunal No. 03-24863
________________
Derrick Jenkins,
Petitioner,
vs.
Mark Inch, etc.,
Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus.
Derrick Jenkins, in proper person.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for respondent.
Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Derrick Jenkins petitions for habeas corpus relief from his conviction for
robbery with a firearm and his sentence as a violent career criminal. He charges
error to the firearm element of his conviction on the basis of Hines v. State, 983 So.
2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), as well as to his sentence as a violent career criminal
due to the state’s purported failure to comply with section 775.084(5), Florida
Statutes (2003). We find the petition to be wholly without merit and deny it. Upon
consideration of Jenkins’ litigation history in this court, we deem further action is
warranted.
This is the latest of thirteen unsuccessful pro se appellate or original
proceedings initiated by Jenkins pertaining to the underlying case since his direct
appeal in 2006.1 Jenkins has continued to raise and litigate meritless claims in
successive appeals and petitions, even after we have affirmed the trial court’s orders
or denied relief sought by him in original proceedings. On December 2, 2015, the
trial court entered an order directing its clerk not to accept any further filings in
Jenkins’ case unless signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar.
1
Jenkins v. State, 959 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (per curiam affirmed); Jenkins
v. State, 985 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (denying habeas); Jenkins v. State, 17
So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (denying prohibition); Jenkins v. State, 28 So. 3d
55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (per curiam affirmed); Jenkins v. State, 54 So. 3d 499 (Fla.
3d DCA 2010) (per curiam affirmed); Jenkins v. State, 50 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA
2010) (per curiam affirmed); Jenkins v. State, 77 So. 3d 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
(per curiam affirmed); Jenkins v. State, 129 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (per
curiam affirmed); Jenkins v. State, 149 So. 3d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (voluntarily
dismissed); Jenkins v. State, 166 So. 3d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (per curiam
affirmed); Jenkins v. State, 194 So. 3d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (per curiam
affirmed); Jenkins v. State, 278 So. 3d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (denying habeas).
2
However, since the entry of that order and our subsequent affirmance of it in
Jenkins v. State, 194 So. 3d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), Jenkins has continued to seek
relief from this court, notwithstanding prior adverse determinations. As such, his
“actions have caused this court to expend precious and finite judicial resources
which could otherwise be devoted to cases raising legitimate claims.” Jackson v.
State, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2899, D2900 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 4, 2019). The right to
proceed pro se may be forfeited where, after proper notice and an opportunity to be
heard, it is determined that such party has abused the judicial process by the
continued filing of meritless or successive collateral claims. See State v. Spencer,
751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999).
The petitioner, Derrick Jenkins, is hereby directed to show cause, within forty-
five days from the date of this opinion, why he should not be prohibited from filing
any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to his
convictions, judgments, and sentences in circuit court number F03-24863. Absent a
showing a good cause, we intend to direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of
Appeal to refuse to accept any such paper relating to this circuit court case number
unless it has been reviewed and signed by a licensed attorney in good standing with
the Florida Bar. Additionally, as we observed in Jackson, we remind Jenkins that,
absent a showing of good cause, any further and unauthorize filings “will subject
3
him to appropriate sanctions . . . including the forfeiture of gain time.” Jackson, 44
Fla. L. Weekly at D2900.
Denied. Order to show cause issued.
4