ANTHONY GLENN MORGAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 record was insufficient to conclusively show the appellant was entitled to no relief, and that the trial court erred in barring further pro se motions without a show cause order.
Appellant appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court also barred him from filing further pro se motions…
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 Postconviction Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
Anthony Glenn Morgan appeals an order summarily denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) as successive. On appeal from a summary denial, this court must reverse unless the post-conviction record, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).
Because the record before us fails to make the required showing, we reverse the order on appeal and remand for an eviden-tiary hearing, or for the attachment of record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).
Moreover, because there is no indication in the record that the trial court entered a show cause order before barring Morgan from filing further pro se post-conviction motions, we reverse that aspect of the order under review as well. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla.1999) (finding that the trial court must first provide the defendant with notice and an opportunity to respond before prohibiting further pro se attacks on a conviction and sentence as a sanction for prior repeated and frivolous motions); Fitzgerald v. State, 18 So.3d 1145, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (reversing an order prohibiting the defendant from filing further pro se pleadings where there was no indication in the record that the trial court had first entered a show cause order).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montanez v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1096 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…er pro se attacks on his or her conviction and sentence as a sanction for prior repeated and frivolous motions”); Lee v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1096 (Fla. 3d DCA May 6, 2020); Chambers v. State, 225 So. 3d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Morgan v. State, 76 So. 3d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Fitzgerald v. State, 18 So. 3d 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Thereafter, the trial court should consider any response filed, together with Montanez’s filing history and other relevant circumstances, determine whether good cause has be…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Fitzgerald v. State, 18 So. 3d 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)