RICKY J. BOSTON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Boston appealed a trial court order summarily denying his Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion, which also imposed sanctions. While the court affirmed the denial of the motion itself, it reversed the sanctions portion, holding that sanctions must be imposed in a separate, appealable order rather than included in the same order denying the motion.
The court affirmed the summary denial of Boston's Rule 3.850 motion but reversed the sanctions portion, holding that sanctions must be imposed by a separately appealable order, not included in the same order denying the motion.
[1] Sanctions imposed in an order summarily denying a motion for post-conviction relief must be imposed in a separately appealable order.
[2] The procedure under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(i) is inadequate for reviewing orders that impose sanctions in addition to summarily denying a motion for po…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“But where an order under review also imposes sanctions, as does the order in the present case, the rule 9.140(i) procedure is usually inadequate. If sanctions are to be challenged, an enlarged record will usually be required, and briefs will be necessary for presentation of the relevant issues for determination by the appellate court.”
Establishes that the streamlined Rule 9.140(i) procedure is inadequate when sanctions are included in the order being reviewed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoston filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. The trial court summarily denied the motion and imposed san…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Summary Denial Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, J.
The appellant challenges the order by which the trial court summarily denied his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. Although we conclude that the trial court properly denied the motion, we reverse the order to the extent that it imposes sanctions.
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(i) specifies a streamlined procedure for review of orders by which rule 3.800(a) and rule 3.850 motions are summarily denied. It provides that the record in such appeals shall consist only of conformed copies of the motion, order, motion for rehearing, order on rehearing, and attachments to the foregoing. And it also indicates that neither briefs nor oral argument shall be required in such appeals.
Where an order under review addresses only a rule 3.800(a) or rule 3.850 motion, rule 9.140(i) provides that the sole issue presented on appeal is whether the motions, orders, and attachments referenced in the rule show conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. The procedure specified in rule 9.140(i) provides the appellate court with everything required for a proper determination of this issue.
But where an order under review also imposes sanctions, as does the order in the present case, the rule 9.140(i) procedure is usually inadequate. If sanctions are to be challenged, an enlarged record will usually be required, and briefs will be necessary for presentation of the relevant issues for determination by the appellate court. The proper procedure to be followed in appeals from post-judgment orders by which sanctions are imposed is therefore the procedure normally applicable in criminal appeals. Although the procedural problem created by orders such as the order under review in the present case might be resolved by a determination that rule 9.140(i) is inapplicable in appeals from such orders, we believe the better approach is to require that sanctions be imposed by a separately appealable order. We therefore hold that sanctions must be imposed in a separate order from the order by which a rule 3.800(a) or rule 3.850 motion is summarily denied.
Accordingly, the order under review is reversed to the extent that it imposes sanctions, but the trial court may reconsider imposition of sanctions upon remand. In doing so, the trial court may wish to consider our recent decision in Spencer v. State, 717 So. 2d 95 (Fla.App. 1st DCA 1998). The order is otherwise affirmed.
BARFIELD, C.J., and WEBSTER, J., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barton v. State, 728 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…llant’s rule 3.800 motion. However, we reverse that part of the order which imposes sanctions barring appellant from filing any further pro se pleadings in this ease and remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinions in Boston v. State, 722 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), and Spencer v. State, 717 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part. BARFIELD, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.…
-
Arnett v. State, 724 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. The order under review is reversed to the extent that it imposes sanctions, but the trial court may reconsider sanctions upon remand. See Boston v. State, 722 So. 2d 250, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The order is otherwise affirmed. BARFIELD, C.J., and ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.…
-
Taylor v. State, 724 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. The order under review is reversed to the extent that it imposes sanctions, but the trial court may reconsider sanctions upon remand. See Boston v. State, 722 So. 2d 250, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The order is otherwise affirmed. BARFIELD, C.J., and ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spencer v. State, 717 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)