ANTONIO A. TANKES
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.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tankes's Rule 3.800 motion challenging the legality of his sentence.
[1] A trial court may bar a pro se litigant from further filing when the litigant engages in excessive or frivolous filings that are not brought in good faith.
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 intelligenceTankes, representing himself, filed claims attacking the legality of his criminal sentence in the trial court. The trial court issued contradictory ru…
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 Legality Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. CONNER, C.J., and KUNTZ, J., concur. WARNER, J., dissenting with opinion. WARNER, J., dissenting.
I would reverse the order prohibiting appellant from further pro se filing in the trial court. His claims as to the legality of his sentence appear to have been filed in good faith, and it is not clear that they were frivolous. The trial court has issued contradictory and confusing rulings with respect to whether appellant’s sentence is illegal, and it ruled only in its most recent order that appellant is estopped from attacking his sentence as illegal. One of appellant’s claims remains pending, but that claim brought a different challenge to his sentence. Although the claim is not meritorious, see Harris v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), I would not find that the simple filing of the claim should prompt an order barring him from future filing. This is not the type of excessive filing which prompted our supreme court to establish the right of courts to bar litigants from further filing. See Rivera v. State, 728 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1998).
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Barnard v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Rivera v. State, 728 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1998)