LARRY L. BRINSON, 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.
Larry Brinson appeals a postconviction court order banning all of his pro se filings in the circuit court. The appellate court reversed the order as overbroad, holding that while the court could prohibit pro se filings attacking his specific criminal judgment, the blanket ban on all pro se filings in unrelated matters exceeded the court's authority.
The court affirmed the sanction of prohibiting pro se filings attacking the judgment, convictions, and sentence in the original criminal case but reversed the order insofar as it applied to completely unrelated cases. The order was remanded for modification to ban only pro se filings attacking or challenging the specific judgment, convictions, or sentence at issue.
[1] A court order prohibiting a defendant from filing further pro se pleadings is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
[2] A prohibition on pro se filings is overbroad if it extends beyond the specific case or matters for which sanctions were contemplated.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a circuit court's order prohibiting pro se filings by a defendant is reviewed by the appellate court under the abuse of discretion standard”
Establishes the standard of review applicable to pro se filing bans
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrinson was convicted in 2007 of sexual battery with a weapon and sentenced to life imprisonment. Over several years, he filed eight separate unsucces…
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 Overbroad Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
Larry Brinson appeals the postconviction court’s “Order Banning Further Pro Se Filings” in all cases. Because we find that the challenged order is overbroad, we reverse for the entry of an order that prohibits Brinson from pro se filings attacking the judgment, convictions, and sentence imposed in the underlying criminal case but does not otherwise bar him from filing pro se pleadings in other unrelated matters.
In 2007, following a jury trial, Brinson was convicted in the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court, St. Johns County, Florida, Case No. CF06-1283, of sexual battery with a weapon or use of force likely to cause great bodily harm and was sentenced to serve life in prison.1 This court affirmed his direct appeal without opinion. Brinson v. State, 969 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Over the ensuing years, Brinson filed a total of eight separate, unsuccessful motions for collateral or postconviction relief. In denying Brinson’s eighth motion, the postconviction court incorporated into its order what is commonly referred to as a “Spencer order,”2 directing Brinson to show cause in writing why, due to his “repetitive, frivolous, and meritless filings,” the court should not prohibit him from filing any further pro se motions or petitions in the court attacking his judgment and sentence in Case No. CF06-1283.
Brinson timely responded to the show cause order. The postconvietion court found no merit in Brinson’s response and further found that Brinson had abused the judicial system by his repetitive and merit-less filings. As a sanction, the court barred Brinson from filing any further pleadings or papers in the court unless signed by an attorney licensed to practice law in Florida. The court’s prohibition applied not only to Case No. CF06-1283 but also to “any other currently active case in which [Brin-son] is representing himself and to any ‘future case.’ ”
A circuit court’s order prohibiting pro se filings by a defendant is reviewed by the appellate court under the abuse of discretion standard. Ashe v. State, 106 So.3d 956, 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citing Hudson v. State, 95 So.3d 413, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). Initially, we find no abuse of discretion in the court barring Brinson from future pro se filings attacking his judgment, convictions, or sentence in Case No. CF06-1283, whether filed in that case or in any other case. However, a literal reading of the present order prohibits Brinson from filing any pro se pleadings, motions, or petitions in any case in the Seventh Judicial Circuit, St. Johns County, even if completely unrelated to Case No. CF06-1283. We find that aspect of the order to be overbroad, especially as the show cause order placing Brinson on notice that the court was considering imposing sanctions against him for his repetitive and frivolous filings only provided that the ban would apply to Brinson’s pro se filings attacking his judgment, convictions, and sentence in Case No. CF06-1283 and not in those cases unrelated to Case No. CF06-1283.
Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand to the lower court to enter an order barring Brinson from filing *1262any pleadings, motions, petitions, or other papers in any case in which Brinson is attacking or challenging the judgment, convictions, or sentence in Case No. CF06-1283, unless reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida and in good standing with The Florida Bar.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
PALMER, ORFINGER, and LAMBERT, JJ. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. Martye S. Gattie, 263 So. 3d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…(Fla. 5th DCA 2018), it would behoove the trial court to provide Harris with notice of the possibility of such broad-reaching sanctions and the opportunity to be heard on the extent of those sanctions if it intends to do so, see Brinson v. State, 215 So. 3d 1260, 1261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (finding sanctions order that prohibited pro se filings in future cases to be overbroad when the show cause order placing Brinson on notice of the possibility of sanctions referred only to the case in which the notice wa…
-
Sapp v. State, 238 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…r cases which have ever been pending" and in "any future cases in which [Sapp] seeks affirmative relief as a plaintiff." A trial court's order prohibiting further pro se filings from a litigant is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Brinson v. State, 215 So. 3d 1260, 1261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). "When a pro se litigant files frivolous law suits or pleadings in a lawsuit, the court has the authority to restrain such a litigant from abusing the legal system and prevent him from abusing, annoying, or harassing those…1 / 2
-
Sapp v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…ases which have ever been pending” and in “any future cases in which [Sapp] seeks affirmative relief as a plaintiff.” A trial court’s order prohibiting further pro se filings from a litigant is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Brinson v. State, 215 So. 3d 1260, 1261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). “When a pro se litigant files frivolous law suits or pleadings in a lawsuit, the court has the authority to restrain such a litigant from abusing the legal system and prevent him from abusing, annoying, or harassing tho…1 / 2
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)
- Lanadieal N. Ashe v. State, 106 So. 3d 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Deaton v. State, 95 So. 3d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Hudson v. State, 95 So. 3d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Haun v. State, 106 So. 3d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Calvin v. State (Fla. 2023)