THOMAS E. JORDAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Successive Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Thomas E. Jordan, challenges the trial court’s order barring him from filing future pro se motions. The trial court stated that it was imposing the sanction due to the repetitive nature of Appellant’s motions. However, all of Appellant’s motions have been filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which allows for the filing of mul*797tiple motions. A rule 8.800(a) motion cannot be classified as successive unless it raises a claim that has previously been addressed on the merits. State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 291 (Fla.2003). In this case, the trial court stopped addressing Appellant’s claims on the merits after his second motion, and none of Appellant’s ensuing motions raised those previously adjudicated claims. Thus, the trial court incorrectly classified these motions as repetitive, and it erred in sanctioning Appellant on that basis. Mims v. State, 994 So.2d 1233, 1235-36 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). We, therefore, VACATE the trial court’s order barring Appellant from filing future pro se motions.
DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gaston v. State, 141 So. 3d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…Defendant previously filed a rule 3.800(a) motion and a timely rule 3.850 motion. Although those motions did not succeed, the issues raised were not successive or repetitive and they appeared to have been advanced in good faith. See Jordan v. State, 36 So. 3d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (vacating order barring appellant from future pro se filings because his second rule 3.800(a) motion contained issues not previously raised and was not successive). [*629] Moreover, the instant claim, although untimely, was groun…
-
Casey v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) allows for the filing of multiple motions, and “[a] rule 3.800(a) motion cannot be classified as successive unless it raises a claim that has previously been addressed on the merits.” Jordan v. State, 36 So. 3d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (Mem). The State concedes that Appellant’s rule 3.800 motion raised a claim not previously decided on the merits. We reverse the order barring Appellant from future pro se filings. We note that a trial court has the au…
-
Bynes v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…al court abused its discretion in imposing a sanction for filing “successive and repetitive” motions because Bynes did not raise a claim in his fourth rule 3.800(a) motion that had previously been adjudicated on the merits. See Jordan v. State, 36 So. 3d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (vacating order prohibiting the defendant from filing pro se motions as a sanction for filing repetitive rule 3.800(a) motions because the defendant never raised a claim that was previously adjudicated on the merits); see also…
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. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Perraza v. State, 994 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Orin A. Mims v. State, 994 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)