DAVID PETTY, 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 affirmed the trial court's summary denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence but reversed the portion of the order barring future pro se filings because the defendant was not given notice and an opportunity to respond before such a sanction was imposed.
A trial court must provide notice and an opportunity to respond before barring a pro se criminal defendant from future filings.
[1] A trial court must provide a pro se criminal defendant with notice and an opportunity to respond before imposing a sanction that bars future pro se filings.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“before the trial court can sanction a defendant by imposing a bar to future pro se filings, a defendant must be given notice and the opportunity to respond”
Court citing the Florida Supreme Court's holding in State v. Spencer regarding required procedural protections for pro se defendants
Petty filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which the trial court summarily denied an…
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 Notice And Opportunity To Respond cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of the appellant’s motion without comment; however, in denying the appellant’s motion the trial court included language barring the appellant from future pro se filings. In the context of pro se criminal defendants, the Florida Supreme Court has held that before the trial court can sanction a defendant by imposing a bar to future pro se filings, a defendant must be given notice and the opportunity to respond. State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48-49 (Fla.1999). Following the holding of Spencer, this Court has consistently reversed trial court orders which bar future pro se filings that are imposed without providing the required notice and opportunity to respond. See, e.g., Jackson v. Parkhouse, 826 So. 2d 478, 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Long v. State, 793 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). On appeal the appellant argues, and the State concedes, that no such notice and opportunity to respond was provided. Accordingly, that part of the trial court’s order barring future pro se filings is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for further consideration consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
BENTON, POLSTON, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Toliver v. Crews, 146 So. 3d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…decision, this Court has consistently reversed trial court orders that bar future pro se filings imposed without providing the required notice and opportunity to be heard. See Hall v. Knight, 986 So. 2d 659, 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Petty v. State, 926 So. 2d 445, 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Jackson v. Parkhouse, 826 So. 2d 478, 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Long v. State, 793 So. 2d 1141, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Here, there is no evidence in the record that the trial court issued the required show cause order.…
-
Wendall Hall v. Captain Knight and Sergeant Ruddy, 986 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…owing the appellees, two correctional officers, to be sued and held personally liable). We also agree that the trial court erred in prohibiting Appellant from filing future pro se actions without first issuing a show cause order. See Petty v. State, 926 So. 2d 445, 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (reversing the trial court’s order to the extent it barred future pro se filings without providing the appellant notice and an opportunity to respond); Jackson v. Parkhouse, 826 So. 2d 478, 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (noting th…
-
Jordan v. State, 995 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…the denial of the appellant’s claim without comment. However, the trial court improperly included language banning the appellant from future pro se filings without giving the appellant notice and an opportunity to respond. See [*994] Petty v. State, 926 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). We therefore reverse the portion of the order banning the appellant from future pro se filings and remand for further consideration consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED and REMANDED, in part. KAHN,…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Jackson v. Parkhouse, 826 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Long v. State, 793 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Miller v. State, 793 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)