JONATHAN EUGENE HUGHES
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court abuses its discretion by entering a final order barring pro se pleadings before the appellant's time to respond has run and without considering a timely-filed motion for an extension of time.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by entering an order restricting a pro se litigant's right to file pleadings without providing a reasonable opportunity for the litiga…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 court entered the final order before appellant's time to file a response had run and did not consider appellant's timely-filed motion for an extension of time.”
The court's explanation of why the trial court abused its discretion
Appellant Hughes filed a Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence and subsequently received an order to show cause. The trial cou…
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 Motion For Extension Of Time cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm without comment the denial of appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. However, we reverse the order barring appellant from filing any further pro se pleadings. We find that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to give appellant a reasonable opportunity to respond to its order to show cause. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999); Davis v. State, 198 So. 3d 995, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). The court entered the final order before appellant’s time to file a response had run and did not consider appellant’s timely-filed motion for an extension of time. On remand, the trial court is instructed to consider and rule on appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file a response to the order to show cause.
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part. DAMOORGIAN, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Davis v. State, 198 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)