MARQUAN M. TATE
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.
An order restricting pro se filings on a criminal case in which the defendant is not incarcerated causes no justiciable harm and must be dismissed on appeal.
[1] An appeal from a postconviction order that causes no harm to the defendant should be dismissed as lacking a justiciable issue.
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“dismissal is appropriate in appeal from postconviction order that results in no harm to defendant”
Court's citation to Earl v. State, 314 So. 3d 1253, 1255-56 (Fla. 2021)
Marquan Tate was incarcerated in case number 562006CF001401A. A trial court issued an order prohibiting him from filing further pro se pleadings on ca…
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 Pro Se Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
MARQUAN M. TATE,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 4D20-2089
[August 25, 2021]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Charles A. Schwab, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562006CF001401A.
Marquan M. Tate, Carrabelle, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM. The defendant seeks review of an order prohibiting him from filing any further pro se pleadings, motions, and petitions challenging the judgment in uniform case number 432006CF001401A. However, that is not the judgment upon which defendant is presently incarcerated. The defendant was adjudicated guilty of and sentenced to incarceration for various offenses in uniform case number 562006CF001401A. Thus, the order on review does not prevent the defendant from continuing to challenge the criminal judgment upon which he is presently incarcerated. Because the postconviction order on review causes no harm to the defendant, we dismiss this appeal. See Earl v. State, 314 So. 3d 1253, 1255-56 (Fla. 2021) (dismissal is appropriate in appeal from postconviction order that results in no harm to defendant; approving district court decision dismissing appeal from such order); see also Joiner v. State, 300 So. 3d 375, 375-76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (dismissing postconviction appeal “[b]ecause the challenged order was not adverse to [the defendant]”). Dismissed.
2
DAMOORGIAN, KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Booker v. State, 400 So. 3d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…granting his requested relief. Because the order was not adverse to him, we hereby dismiss the appeal. See Credit Indus. Co. v. Remark Chem. Co., 67 So. 2d 540, 541 (Fla. 1953); Earl v. State, 276 So. 3d 359, 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), approved, 314 So. 3d 1253 (Fla. 2021). Dismissed.…
-
Careaga v. State, 393 So. 3d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…deny the appellant’s motion for rehearing and request for a written opinion. However, we withdraw our prior per curiam affirmance without citation and substitute the following per curiam affirmance with citation. Affirmed. See Earl v. State, 314 So. 3d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 2021) (although Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a)’s plain language “does not expressly prohibit defendants from seeking to correct unlawfully lenient sentences … defendants are not entitled to such relief under the rule abs…
-
Harris v. State, 403 So. 3d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…by dismiss the appeal. See Booker v. State, 400 So. 3d 716, 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (first citing Credit Indus. Co. v. Remark Chem. Co., 67 So. 2d 540, 541 (Fla. 1953); and then citing Earl v. State, 276 So. 3d 359, 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), approved, 314 So. 3d 1253 (Fla. 2021)).1 1 For the first time on appeal, Harris contends that this procedural error required that the judgment be entered in his presence, alleging that without this the judgment is void. We find no merit in this claim. See Wilson v. State,…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Niklas Yury Prokopishen *W* v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)