Abigail L. Drinks v. State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed December 31, 2025.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1720
Lower Tribunal No. F92-14471
________________
Abigail L. Drinks,
Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida ,
Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from
the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alberto Milian, Judge.
Abigail L. Drinks, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Haccord Curry, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCALES, C.J., and MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.
MILLER, J.

2
Appellant, Abigail L. Drinks, also known as Abigail Laticia King and
Abigail L. Johnson, appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of her
motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.850. On appeal, she contends the trial court reversibly erred in summarily
denying relief because she continues to suffer the collateral consequences
of a not guilty by reason of insanity finding rendered over three decades ago.
We affirm.
I
In 1992, Drinks was adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity of five
counts of attempted first degree murder and involuntarily committed to a
secure, inpatient forensic facility. Drinks eventually no longer met the criteria
for involuntary hospitalization; and, in 2010, the trial court entered an order
purporting to terminate its jurisdiction over the case. 	See §§ 916.15(1),
916.16(1), Fla. Stat.
Fifteen 	years 	later, 	Drinks 	filed 	a 	statement 	with 	the 	trial 	court
identifying herself as a member of the Sovereign Nuwaupian Nation and
declaring her lineage.1 She subsequently sought postconviction relief on a
myriad of grounds, including newly discovered evidence and various civil
rights violations. 	After receiving a response from the State, the trial court
summarily denied relief. This appeal ensued.

3
II
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 provides an avenue for relief
from judgment or a custody release for any “person who has been tried and
found guilty or has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere before a court
established by the laws of Florida.” Id. By its plain text, the rule self-limits to
findings of guilt. 	See Dorton v. State, 247 So. 3d 714, 715 (Fla. 5th DCA
2018).
Here, Drinks was not found guilty. 	Instead, she was adjudicated not
guilty by reason of insanity and committed to a psychiatric facility. 	As a
result, she is not procedurally postured to fall within the ambit of rule 3.850.
Accordingly, we affirm the order under review.
Affirmed.
1 Drinks’s allegations contain many of the similar arguments made by others
using the “sovereign citizen” theory. 	See Trevino v. Florida, 687 F. App’x
861, 862 (11th Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal of sovereign citizen lawsuit as
frivolous that was filed by a prisoner alleging that “Florida has no jurisdiction
over him because he is a ‘natural born, free ... [l]iving, breathing, flesh and
blood human [being]’”); United States v. Alexio, Nos. 13–01017 JMS, 13–
01018 JMS, 2015 WL 4069160, at *4 (D. Haw. July 2, 2015) (denying
defendant’s sovereign citizen theory and agreeing with “many other courts
across the United States, conclud[ing] that ‘sovereign citizens,’ like all
citizens of the United States, are subject to the laws of the jurisdiction in
which they reside” (quotation marks and citations omitted (quoting Paul v.
New York, No. 13–CV–5047 (SJF)(AKT), 2013 WL 5973138, at *3 (E.D.N.Y.
Nov. 5, 2013)))); United States v. Sterling, 738 F.3d 228, 233 n.1 (11th Cir.
2013) (noting that sovereign citizen claims from defendants “who believe
they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and who frequently deny

4
that they are the defendants in the action” are rejected by courts across the
United States as they are “frivolous” (citation omitted)); United States v.
Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (noting that sovereign citizen
theories should “be rejected summarily, however they are presented”);
Roach v. Arrisi, No. 8:15–cv–2547–T–33AE2016, WL 8943290, at *2 (M.D.
Fla. Jan. 7, 2016) (noting that sovereign citizen theories have not only been
consistently rejected by the courts, but they have been described as “utterly
frivolous” (citation omitted)).