SHEDRICH HINES, 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 the trial court erred in prohibiting future pro se filings without notice and an opportunity to be heard, but affirmed the dismissal of most claims in the motion to correct illegal sentence.
Appellant filed a fourth motion to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court dismissed the motion as successive and prohibited future pro se filing…
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 Successive Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Shedrich Hines files this, his fourth motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). This motion was dismissed by the trial court as successive, with an additional provision that future pro se filings attacking his conviction and sentence in this case would be prohibited pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999). We reverse that portion of the order prohibiting future pro se filings and remand it to the trial court to allow appellant notice and an opportunity to be heard before imposing the injunction. Id.
We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the first three claims of appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence. Claim two is barred by the doctrine of “law of the case,” because it was raised in appellant’s first and second rule 3.800(a) motions, the denial of which we affirmed in earlier appeals.
Claims one and three are barred by collateral estoppel, because they were raised in appellant’s third 3.800(a) motion, which was summarily denied but not appealed. See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla.2003).
Finally, as to claim four, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal of this claim, because it does not appear to have been raised before. Claim four appears to be refuted by the record, as pointed out by the state in its response filed below. However, since the trial court did not entertain it on its merits, we reverse and remand to the trial court for further consideration.
Affirmed in part, Reversed and Remanded in part.
GUNTHER, WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Massaro v. State, 244 So. 3d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…give appellant notice or an opportunity to respond before entering the order. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999); Jones v. State, 221 So. 3d 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017); Stokes v. State, 50 So. 3d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Hines v. State, 949 So. 2d 1086, 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded. GROSS, TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)