SANFORD PAUL BUTLER, 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.
Sanford Paul Butler appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The court affirms that Butler's illegal sentence claim was properly deemed successive and lacked merit, but reverses and remands because the trial court failed to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before barring pro se filings and recommending forfeiture of gain time.
The court affirms that Butler's illegal sentence claim was properly deemed successive and lacked merit because the speedy trial argument had been decided on the merits in prior cases and in federal habeas proceedings. However, the court reverses the trial court's order barring pro se filings and recommending gain time forfeiture because the trial court failed to comply with State v. Spencer by providing notice and an opportunity to respond before imposing such restrictions.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence is successive and lacks merit if the same arguments have been previously decided on the merits by state and federal courts.
[2] A court must provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing a litigant from bringing further attacks on their conviction and sentence.
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“courts must provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing a litigant from bringing further attacks on his conviction and sentence”
Establishes the Spencer requirement that trial courts must follow proper procedures before imposing restrictions on pro se filings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceButler filed a rule 3.800(a) motion arguing his jurisdictional speedy trial argument had not been decided on the merits. However, the record showed Bu…
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 Gain Time Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, J.
Sanford Paul Butler, appearing pro se, appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He raises three issues in his appeal. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Butler’s first claim is that the trial court erred when it denied his rule 3.800(a) motion as successive. In his motion, Butler argued that his jurisdictional speedy trial argument had not been decided on the merits.
The record reveals that Butler made this argument before to this court and a decision had been entered on the merits. Butler v. State, 784 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Butler v. State, 829 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Further, the trial court explained that Butler had filed a writ of habeas corpus in the federal court that had been denied, with prejudice, specifically addressing the merits of his speedy trial argument.
The trial court correctly noted that Butler’s sentence is not illegal and has been reviewed by the trial court, this court, and the federal district court. His illegal sentence claim was successive and lacked merit.
However, Butler also claims that the trial court erred because its order barred him from filing further pleadings without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The State concedes the record contains no show cause order in accordance with State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999).
Spencer held that courts must provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing a litigant from bringing further attacks on his conviction and sentence. Id. Therefore, we reverse and remand to attach records establishing that Butler received notice and an opportunity to be heard or, to enter an order to show cause in accordance with Spencer. Similarly, Butler argues that the court erred in recommending that the Department of Corrections forfeit his gain time as a sanction for filing successive pleadings. Based on the lack of a Spencer order, on remand, the trial court should attach records establishing that Butler received notice and an opportunity to be heard or enter such an order to show cause in accordance with Spencer, before barring him from further pro se pleadings or imposing sanctions.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
PLEUS, C.J. and TORPY, JJ„ concur. . The trial court’s order stated that Butler "SHALL NOT file any further motions of any kind without the assistance of an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida.” Any order barring Butler from pro se pleadings should limit the prohibition to the instant case, rather than a broad prohibition against "filing any motions of any kind.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Desue v. Tucker, 100 So. 3d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ht to pro se access to the courts but declaring “it is important for courts to first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing that litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence”); Butler v. State, 953 So. 2d 12, 13 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (requiring a Spencer order before barring either future pro se pleadings or imposing other sanctions). Petitioner’s response to the show cause order does not provide a legal basis to prohibit the imposition of sanctions. As…
-
Ghent v. State, 17 So. 3d 1250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…se access to the courts but declaring “it is important for courts to first provide notice and an oppor [*1251] tunity to respond before preventing that litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence”); Butler v. State, 953 So. 2d 12, 13 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (requiring a Spencer order before barring either future pro se pleadings or imposing other sanctions). Because the postconviction court failed to follow the proper procedure, we reverse the portion of the order prohibiting Gh…
-
Nyka O'Connor v. Sergeant Watt, 119 So. 3d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…ht to pro se access to the courts but declaring “it is important for courts to first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing that litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence”); Butler v. State, 953 So. 2d 12, 13 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (requiring a Spencer order before barring either future pro se pleadings or imposing other sanctions). O’Connor was granted an extension of time to respond to the show cause order. His response attacked this Court’s authorit…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)