Filed: Oct. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Supreme Court of Florida _ No. SC18-695 _ RONALD K. SCHIMING, Petitioner, vs. JULIE L. JONES, etc., Respondent. October 19, 2018 PER CURIAM. This case is before the Court on the petition of Ronald K. Schiming for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. By order dated July 10, 2018, we denied Schiming’s petition as repetitive pursuant to Topps v. State, 865 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2004). Schiming v. Jones, No. SC18-695, Order at 1, 2018 WL 3356163 (Fla. July 10
Summary: Supreme Court of Florida _ No. SC18-695 _ RONALD K. SCHIMING, Petitioner, vs. JULIE L. JONES, etc., Respondent. October 19, 2018 PER CURIAM. This case is before the Court on the petition of Ronald K. Schiming for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. By order dated July 10, 2018, we denied Schiming’s petition as repetitive pursuant to Topps v. State, 865 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2004). Schiming v. Jones, No. SC18-695, Order at 1, 2018 WL 3356163 (Fla. July 10,..
More
Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC18-695
____________
RONALD K. SCHIMING,
Petitioner,
vs.
JULIE L. JONES, etc.,
Respondent.
October 19, 2018
PER CURIAM.
This case is before the Court on the petition of Ronald K. Schiming for a
writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. By
order dated July 10, 2018, we denied Schiming’s petition as repetitive pursuant to
Topps v. State, 865 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2004). Schiming v. Jones, No. SC18-695,
Order at 1,
2018 WL 3356163 (Fla. July 10, 2018). Concurrent with the denial of
the petition, we expressly retained jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against
Schiming. Id.; see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion).
Schiming was convicted in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in
and for Orange County, Florida, on counts of attempted first-degree murder, sexual
battery by threat or force, kidnapping, possession of a weapon in the commission
of a felony, and robbery with a deadly weapon (case number
481987CF005037000AOX). He was sentenced to various concurrent terms of
incarceration, including life imprisonment for the attempted murder conviction.
On direct appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction for
kidnapping and remanded for a new trial on that charge. The remaining
convictions and sentences were affirmed. See Schiming v. State, 534 So. 2d 1252
(Fla. 5th DCA 1988). The State nolle prossed the kidnapping charge in 1989, but
in 1991 Petitioner filed a motion to correct sentence under Florida Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) claiming that he was never resentenced on the
remaining convictions. On appeal of the trial court’s denial of that motion, the
Fifth District affirmed Petitioner’s departure sentence for attempted first-degree
murder, but his guidelines sentences on the remaining convictions were vacated
and remanded for resentencing. See Schiming v. State,
617 So. 2d 813, 815 (Fla.
5th DCA 1993). After resentencing, Petitioner again appealed and the Fifth
District per curiam affirmed his convictions and sentences. See Schiming v. State,
637 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
Schiming began filing petitions with the Court in 2003. Since that time, he
has filed eleven previous petitions or notices related to his convictions and
-2-
sentences in the above-stated case.1 We have never granted the relief sought in any
of Schiming’s filings, all of which have been denied, dismissed, or transferred by
the Court. Ten of these previous filings have been habeas petitions in which
Schiming challenged the legality of his life sentence for attempted first-degree
murder. The habeas petition in this case was no exception. Schiming argued that
his 1987 conviction for attempted first-degree murder was erroneously reclassified
as a life felony, making his sentence illegal because the jury did not make a
separate finding in its verdict that he had used a deadly weapon during commission
of the offense. We denied the petition as repetitive and directed Schiming to show
cause why he should not be barred from filing any further pro se requests for relief
1. See Schiming v. Jones, No. SC17-56, 2017 WL 1034541 (Fla. Mar. 17,
2017) (habeas petition dismissed as unauthorized); Schiming v. Jones, No. SC16-
1728,
2016 WL 6656787 (Fla. Nov. 9, 2016) (habeas petition denied as repetitive);
Schiming v. Jones, No. SC15-2048,
2016 WL 282097 (Fla. Jan. 22, 2016) (habeas
petition denied as procedurally barred); Schiming v. Crews,
139 So. 3d 887 (Fla.
2014) (table) (No. SC13-1799) (habeas petition dismissed); Schiming v. State,
119
So. 3d 444 (Fla. 2013) (table) (No. SC12-2745) (mandamus petition dismissed);
Schiming v. McNeil, No. SC10-2227 (Fla. Dec. 14, 2010) (habeas petition
transferred); Schiming v. McNeil,
22 So. 3d 539 (Fla. 2009) (table) (No. SC09-
1083) (habeas petition dismissed); Schiming v. McNeil,
982 So. 2d 1179 (Fla.
2008) (table) (No. SC08-604) (habeas petition denied as repetitive); Schiming v.
McDonough,
939 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2006) (table) (No. SC06-1165) (habeas petition
dismissed); Schiming v. State,
903 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 2005) (table) (No. SC05-285)
(notice to invoke administratively dismissed); Schiming v. State, No. SC03-871
(Fla. May 18, 2004) (habeas petition transferred).
-3-
and referred to the Department of Corrections for possible disciplinary action
pursuant to section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2018).
Schiming filed a response to the order to show cause in which he reasserts
that his life sentence is illegal and argues that sanctions would be improper because
this Court has never addressed the merits of his claim. He argues that he has
always alleged manifest injustice, making all of his filings meritorious and
therefore not frivolous. Upon due consideration of Schiming’s response, we
conclude that it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. Based
on his persistent history of filing pro se petitions that were frivolous, meritless, or
otherwise inappropriate for this Court’s review, Schiming has abused the judicial
process and burdened this Court’s limited judicial resources. We further conclude
that Schiming’s petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this case, which
represents the eleventh petition in which he has raised the same issue and sought
the same relief, is a frivolous proceeding brought before this Court by a state
prisoner. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2018).
Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future
pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Ronald K.
Schiming that are related to case number 481987CF005037000AOX, unless such
filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Counsel may
file on Schiming’s behalf if counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit
-4-
and can be brought in good faith. Furthermore, because we have found Schiming’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 Schiming is
incarcerated.
No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by the Court.
It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA,
and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus
Ronald K. Schiming, Sr., pro se, Madison, Florida,
for Petitioner
No appearance for Respondent
-5-
