LA-CASSE
v.
STATE
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.
This is a follow-up appellate decision in which the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's orders mooting a pro se litigant's responses to a Show Cause Order and remanded for proper consideration of whether to preclude future pro se filings. The case arose after the appellate court previously reversed an initial blanket ban on pro se filings and remanded for a proper hearing with notice.
The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court improperly mooted La-Casse's responses without ever adjudicating whether he should be precluded from further pro se filings. On remand, the trial court must consider the amended response and make a substantive determination on the merits of the Show Cause Order.
[1] A trial court must substantively adjudicate a Show Cause Order by considering the defendant's response rather than mooting the response without addressing the underlying…
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 intelligenceLuis La-Casse filed pro se post-conviction pleadings in lower court case number F04-29879. After the trial court initially precluded all further pro s…
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 Confession Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In La-Casse v. State, 223 So. 3d 1129, 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), this Court reversed the trial court’s order precluding Luis La-Casse from filing any further pro se post-conviction pleadings in lower court case number F04-29879, and remanded for entry of a Show Cause Order “to provide La-Casse the opportunity to demonstrate why an order precluding pro se filings should not be entered.” On remand, on October 12, 2017, the trial court entered a Show Cause Order. In November 2017, La-Casse filed a timely response to the Show Cause Order. La-Casse later filed an amended response. For reasons that are unclear in the record, the trial court entered two separate orders “mooting” both La-Casse’s response and amended response to the Show Cause Order. Indeed, the trial court docket does not reflect that the trial court, on remand, ever issued an order determining whether La-Casse should be precluded from further pro se filings in lower court case number F04-29879.
Based on the record before us and the State’s proper and commendable confession of error that the trial court incorrectly mooted La-Casse’s responses to the Show Cause Order, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court should consider La-Casse’s amended response to the trial court’s October 12, 2017 Show Cause Order, and adjudicate whether La-Casse should be precluded from further pro se filings in lower case number F04-29879.
This Court expresses no opinion on that issue.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
La-Casse v. State, 271 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- La-Casse v. State, 223 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)