LLOYD MCELRATH, 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.
The court held that while the motion was successive and procedurally barred, the trial court erred in prohibiting future pro se collateral motions without notice and an opportunity to respond.
Appellant filed a Rule 3.800(a) motion which the trial court denied as successive and procedurally barred, also prohibiting future pro se filings. The…
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 Rule 3.800(A) Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
Lloyd McElrath appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his Rule 3.800(a) motion. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The trial court determined that McEl-rath’s motion was “successive and procedurally barred.” The court also ruled that McElrath should be prohibited from filing further pro se motions seeking collateral relief in the instant case, noting that such future filings could result in contempt of court and subject him to punishment including forfeiture of gain time.
On the merits, we agree that McElrath is not entitled to relief as his instant motion is indeed “successive and procedurally barred .” However, we conclude that the court erred in prohibiting him from filing any further pro se collateral motions as there is no indication that the court first provided him notice and an opportunity to respond before ordering such prohibition. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999). Nothing on the face of the order reflects compliance with Spencer. Accordingly, we affirm on the merits but reverse and remand to ensure the trial court’s compliance with Spencer on the issue of prohibiting future pro se post-conviction motions from McElrath. If the court has, in fact, already provided McEl-rath prior notice and an opportunity to be heard before prohibiting him from filing future pro se post-conviction motions, it can so state in a corrected order. If, however, the court has not provided the requisite hearing, it must do so according to Spencer. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
PETERSON and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reyna v. State, 18 So. 3d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…have granted Mr. Reyna an evidentiary hearing. See Kirkland v. State, 1 So. 3d 1224, 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“ ‘[RJelief may be summarily denied only where the record conclusively refutes [a facially sufficient] claim.’ ” (quoting Doward v. State, 802 So. 2d 518, 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001))). Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of Mr. Reyna’s second claim and remand for an evidentiary hearing. [*1134] Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded. KHOUZAM, J., Concurs specially with opinion. VILLANTI,…
-
Randall v. State, 885 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…y itself reflects that Mr. Randall answered only yes or no to questions put to him by the trial judge, and did not otherwise engage in conversation with the court. We conclude that Mr. Randall states a facially sufficient claim. In Doward v. State, 802 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), we held in somewhat similar circumstances that an evidentiary hearing was required because the defendant’s mental status at the time of the plea hearing was not conclusively refuted by the record. See also Rivera v. State, 746 S…
-
Stokes v. State, 938 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…850 motion that he was never asked whether he was under the influence of any medications, despite his history of mental illness and psychiatric hospitalizations, was facially sufficient despite finding of competency to stand trial); Doward v. State, 802 So. 2d 518, 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (finding that, in denying a rule 3.850 motion, a trial judge could not rely on a psychiatrist’s report prepared three months prior to the plea hearing concerning competency to stand trial because the report did not address t…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)