JESSE LEE STONE, 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.
Appellant Stone challenged a trial court's finding that his motion to correct an illegal sentence was frivolous and the court's referral of the case to the Department of Corrections for consideration of sanctions. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court did not impose sanctions but merely referred the matter to DOC, which must provide a due process hearing before any sanctions are imposed.
The trial court did not err because it did not impose sanctions itself but merely referred the case to the DOC. The DOC, not the circuit court, is responsible for holding a due process hearing prior to imposing any sanctions, and the trial court is not required to provide a hearing prior to making a finding of frivolousness based on the filings in the case.
[1] A trial court may refer an inmate's frivolous or abusive motion to the Department of Corrections for consideration of statutory sanctions without holding an evidentiary h…
[2] The Department of Corrections, not the circuit court, is responsible for conducting a due process hearing prior to the imposition of sanctions against an inmate for filin…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the trial court did not impose sanctions but referred the case to the Department of Corrections to consider statutory sanctions. The DOC, not the circuit court, holds a due process hearing, prior to the imposition of sanctions.”
Establishes the critical distinction that the trial court's role was referral, not sanction imposition, placing the due process requirement on the DOC.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStone filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, alleging he was improperly sentenced as a habitual offender. The trial court found that Stone was…
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 Habitual Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
In denying appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence, which alleged that he *99was improperly sentenced as a habitual offender, the trial court found: “Contrary to the defendant’s allegations, he was clearly sentenced as a habitual offender and given minimum mandatory sentences. This motion is frivolous and abusive. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999).” The court further ordered that a certified copy of the order be forwarded to appellant’s warden “for consideration of sanctions under Florida Statute sections 944.279(1), 944.28, and 944.09.”
On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing sanctions without affording him an evidentiary hearing. We affirm, as the trial court did not impose sanctions but referred the case to the Department of Corrections to consider statutory sanctions. The DOC, not the circuit court, holds a due process hearing, prior to the imposition of sanctions. See Spencer v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrections, 828 So.2d 752, 754 (Fla.2002) (“The department’s rules specifically provide for discipline when a court finds that an inmate has filed a frivolous lawsuit. The rules also provide that an inmate charged with such a rule violation is entitled to a due process hearing before discipline is imposed. These rules specify how the due process hearing should be conducted, how the findings of fact should be determined, how the discipline should be determined, and how to appeal that decision.”) (internal citations omitted). The trial court is not required to provide an additional hearing to appellant prior to making its finding of frivolousness, which can be made strictly from the filings in the case.
Affirmed.
POLEN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.