JAMICHEA ZIEGLER

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

JAMICHEA ZIEGLER, Appellant,

V.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2314

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Mark Borello, Judge.

November¹, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Jamichea Ziegler appeals an order dismissing his motion for postconviction relief with prejudice. Because Ziegler failed to comply with multiple court orders and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d), we affirm.

Two years after his 2014 conviction for attempted seconddegree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, Ziegler filed his first motion for postconviction relief. He then filed two amended motions. He also moved twice for leave to exceed the 50-page limit on such motions set forth in rule 3.850(d). The court dismissed Ziegler's amended motions as facially insufficient for failing to comply with rule 3.850(d), and it denied his motions for leave to exceed the 50-page limit. However, Ziegler was granted leave to file an amended motion.

Ziegler filed four more amended motions, raising 33 grounds for relief in the first motion, 32 grounds in the second, 33 grounds in the third, and 42 grounds in the fourth. The postconviction court found that the first three motions were voluntarily dismissed and dismissed the fourth motion for an insufficient oath. Still, the court granted Ziegler another chance to amend his postconviction motion pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007). But the court included in its order a warning that Ziegler would not be permitted to write his motion in a way to defeat the 50-page limitation in rule 3.850(d), and that he should comply with the margin, line-spacing, and legibility requirements of the rule.

Ziegler then moved to add an oath to his fourth postconviction motion that had been dismissed for lack of an oath. Ziegler indicated that he wanted to rely on the grounds raised in that motion. He declined the opportunity to file an amended motion or re-submit his previous motion.

The court dismissed Ziegler's amended motion with prejudice as an abuse of process. The court found that Ziegler drafted the motion in a manner that violated the requirements for legibility, margins, line spacing, and page limits in rule 3.850(d). The rule requires motions to be “typewritten or hand-written in legible printed lettering, in blue or black ink, double-spaced, with margins no less than¹ inch on white 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper.” Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(d). It also provides that "[n]o motion, including any memorandum of law, shall exceed 50 pages without leave of the court upon a showing of good cause." Id.

The Second District explained in Al-Hakim v. State, 87 So. 3d 836, 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), that a handwritten motion containing an excessive number of lines per page could be dismissed as illegible or, depending on the number of pages, as violative of the length limitations. The court further explained:

Id.

The clear intent of the amendment to rule 3.850(c)¹ was to relieve judges and their staffs from the burden of sifting through overlong and illegible motions. Before the amendment, the Fourth District in Ezer v. State, 10 So. 3d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), reviewed an “excessively lengthy motion" and declared that "a strict page limitation should be imposed on rule 3.850 motions.” In the same vein, the Fourth District lamented that “[t]he laudable goals of post-conviction relief are lost when defendants abuse the process" by filing extremely long motions. Hedrick v. State, 6 So. 3d 688, 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). By imposing a limit of fifty pages of specified size with explicit margins, the amendment tackled that problem. Like the margin requirement, double-spacing prevents evasion of the length limit by compression of an overlong motion into the required number of pages.

Here, when it dismissed Ziegler's postconviction motion and granted leave to amend, the court specifically instructed Ziegler to write legibly, and comply with the page limit, margin, and linespacing requirements of rule 3.850(d). Despite the court's order, Ziegler chose not to amend his motion. Instead, he relied on his earlier-filed motion that was 49 pages long and contained 42 grounds for relief. The handwritten text is very small and illegible at times. Each page typically includes 40-50 lines of text² and the margins throughout the motion are typically less than¹ inch.³ If

Ground¹

Fraud on the court-denial of defendants due process right to transcript and right to appeal through spoilation of the record, and fraudulent consealment by providing altered transcripts to defendant and higher courts (D.C.A) to remove meritus issues for relief in Vislation of Article i section 2 and 9 flu, const and vis.c. A const amend sandiy Due preser process righ rights supporting facts: The following sections of defendants transcripts have been delibrately changed 1. The recurd page 9 on record 3 have been changed reen-ving where the state informed defense and court the victim did not make no statements and there was no favorable evidence of rxoneration: Into the State falsely Stating She provided the victim Statement. Proof defendant mention the subject again about when. State states there was si vietom statements R2.274 and defense. counsel inform Statements was provided at lust minute R2.277 to which prior to trial, and after State denled Statements exist courses Informed covit defendant possessed all discovery at that time 2) 13.26 Rengers pofficer fox onlist as witnesses 3) R3.141-144 have mostly been altered concerning All call where defense counsel did not debate with State over Introduction of Filcall. He only abdicted at defenonts (equest and never sighted any logic why nor dlo state present in details how ils call was an excitted uttermMLE. 4) R3.152-163 nelson hearing is mostly altered with the major errors that support defendarts ineffective assistance of consti claims removed where on page is 2 line 5-7 Blantontly remove derendants assertion that he didn't get to hear jamilla sonders 9ll call Aur •Anonymous Ill call or see msiórquric swo sworn Statement liv!), yord surveillance for any DVD or 'll call nor Victim Statement or statements ond allegations ms,bona Ross and Feli Sha felton said was in Discovery. further, this record remove when, Tom mur priy Kornset for defense admitted not allowing defendent to hear or inspect nolll calls or DVDs it remove defendant spealling on the fact there was 2 911 caits where one was ms.sonders and one from unidentified male. Dona pross was not known as a witness and her Lome is changed 5.) There was no Direct examination nor Goss-examination of Kimberely burren because no kimberely barren was neverat defendants Trial as in false. record R4.236-243, and no one came to authenticate. Ill call perioden violation of 90.901 and this is proven where a differen't all call in closing argument is not authenticated either. 6. Join avalus never stated incident happend at 11:37 (RY iner didn't officer fox! 'ayed 7.) Michea Rodgers admitting the time all video as it:37 was false and the surveillance video never displayed no actrai clock time. This is why the State Informed Jury she was rewinding and fast forwardingh seconds not time see R andRs.376 Also, the State made on entire orgument deling I time the video played. Pointing out there go's. 96's the defendut and stating see the gun u his hond while pointing to the video where no gun could be seen and now The entere section of the State's misconduct, ond argument gave for presenting the wideo is gone. (R4.25) 8) Defendant testimony That Misborguric Threatens him to get a guy named "Ray" to hurt humont that ens. brgulile bring boy" to harm him and he shot detendants brother is removed entirely from defendants tostimony every time he expironed This but, proof he expliuned so is in clising argument where defense counsel recupe assertion. Dwhen the state asseried You know that's your brother sumane ziegler whomonde the 911 call on the way to the wapital is comovis from cross examination of defendant by Shape to hike he is wort T fraud on the court: -occurs, such as may warrant rellef from Judgment, where it combe demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with Judicial system's wailing Impartially to as Judicate matter. Ex Fabrication of evidenceshompering the presentation of the opposing porty's claim of defense. In this case the state first presented false evidence, witnesses and testimony at Irlal of Ill calls see. supporting facts onpages on 36 and grounds 27.368 Then pusfact offart to to prevent prevent de defendente Pradestras Ears " in on effort to prevent defendent from uppealing The errors The State and court prouded false. Trouscript changing entire arguments, adding wanisses, and removing desen •for This reason all nges is not known to list and de fundant seen a correct meritous claims to defall his appeal. for This all changes 10 1-8 Lord, PAGE # 10 the motion had been drafted with the required margins and linespacing, it would easily exceed the 50-page limit. Based on these violations of rule 3.850(d) and its earlier orders, the postconviction court dismissed Ziegler's postconviction motion.

The record shows that the court gave Ziegler multiple opportunities to amend his postconviction motion and warned him at least two times to comply with rule 3.850(d). Because Ziegler refused to comply with the rule, the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the postconviction motion with prejudice.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.