JEFFREY R. HASTINGS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Hastings sought certiorari review of trial court orders striking his pro se motions, arguing illegal consecutive sentences and denial of due process. The court denied certiorari, applying the law of the case doctrine because Hastings had previously appealed the underlying order restricting his pro se filings and this court had affirmed it.
The court denied certiorari, holding that the law of the case doctrine bars Hastings from raising issues that were or could have been raised in his prior appeal of the 1998 order, even though that order was entered without proper notice and opportunity to be heard as later required by State v. Spencer.
[1] A prior appellate decision affirming a trial court's order, even if that order was entered without proper notice and opportunity to be heard, invokes the doctrine of law…
[2] Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before an order is entered that deprives a party of the right to file pleadings.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before entry of an order depriving a party of the right to file pleadings”
Establishes the constitutional requirement later articulated in State v. Spencer that Hastings contended was violated
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHastings was convicted in case number 79-3126 and received consecutive sentences. In 1998, a trial judge entered an order denying post-conviction reli…
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 Pro Se Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey R. Hastings seeks certiorari review of two orders of the Palm Beach County Circuit Court striking his pro se motions in trial court case number 79-3126 CF A02.
Petitioner makes two principal arguments in his petition. He argues that his consecutive sentences for his convictions in case number 79-3126 are illegal. Petitioner has raised this issue numerous times below, and at least three times in this court.1 In each of the foregoing cases, petitioner’s arguments have been considered and the sentences have been affirmed.
Next, petitioner argues that the trial court denied him due process when it entered its orders striking his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his motion for rehearing of that order. The orders presently under review are dated August 9 and August 31, 2000, and are predicated upon an order dated August 26, 1998. In that order, a predecessor judge denied post-conviction relief and prohibited petitioner from filing further pro se pleadings. The state, in its response to this petition, acknowledges that “the trial court’s extensive record does not reflect the issuance of an order to show cause before the court’s entry of its August 26,1998 order.”
In State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999), the supreme court held that due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before entry of an order depriving a party of the right to file pleadings. The state correctly points out that Spencer is to be applied prospectively. The state acknowledges, however, that before the entry of the August 26, 1998 order, this court in Martin v. Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 627 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), had held that a circuit court could not issue an order restricting pro se pleadings without first giving the litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Although the record does not demonstrate that the predecessor judge afforded petitioner notice and an opportunity to be heard before entering the August 26, 1998 order, petitioner appealed that order, and this court affirmed. Hastings v. State, 729 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The doctrine of law of the case, therefore, applies, and the petitioner may not raise issues which either were or could have been raised in the prior appeal. See Warren v. State, 709 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We, therefore, deny certiorari.
CERTIORARI DENIED
WARNER, C.J., DELL and KLEIN, JJ., concur. . Case Nos. 4D90-2787, 4D94-1752 and 4D97-0825.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foster v. State, 861 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…utes (2001), nullifies Delgado v. State, 776 So. 2d 233. Although that nullification [purportedly] operates retroactively, the legislature limited that retroactivity to February 1, 2000. The instant events took place prior thereto.”); Ruiz v. State, 789 So. 2d 1108, 1108 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) ("We are aware of the creation of section 810.015, Florida Statutes (2001) expressing the legislature's finding that Delgado v. State was decided contrary to legislative intent, and setting forth the intent to nullify D…
-
Hastings v. Hon. Barry Krischer, 840 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…n raised in the prior appeal. With respect to his consecutive sentencing, this court pointed out that Petitioner had raised the issue numerous times previously and that his arguments were considered and the sentences affirmed. See Hastings v. State, 789 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). On September 27, 2000, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel Judge Wennet to issue an order that his sentence commenced on the date of imposition, June 24, 1980, and the reversal of the order barri…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Martin v. Cir. Court, 627 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Warren v. State, 709 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)