Jeffrey Smith v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jeffrey Smith v. State of Florida

197 So. 3d 580, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6868, 2016 WL 2342967

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 4, 2016

Docket4D15-2566

StatusPublished

This text of 197 So. 3d 580 (Jeffrey Smith v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jeffrey Smith v. State of Florida, 197 So. 3d 580, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6868, 2016 WL 2342967 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Smith seeks review of orders denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule,of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and the related motion for rehearing, as well as an order prohibiting him from filing future pro se pleadings pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999). We reverse in part.

Spencer permits a court to prohibit a litigant, who has filed repetitious and frivolous pleadings and papers, from filing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence, after notice and opportunity to be heard. Id. at 48. Smith’s filing was his fourth amendment to his first' rule 3.850 motion. However, it reached the trial court after the court had ruled on the. pending motion. It was treated and denied as an untimely successive motion. At the State’s urging, the trial court issued a Spencer order to show cause and then issued the sanction order. We affirm the order that denied the amended motion, but reverse the sanction order. Jimenez-Jimenez v. State, 142 So.3d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Wilson v. State, 57 So.3d 1000 (Fla. 4th- DCA 2011). While' we- reverse, we caution Smith that, should he abuse the process by continually filing additional pleadings, he may face the same prohibition again.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Smith seeks review of orders denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule,of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and the related motion for rehearing, as well as an order prohibiting him from filing future pro se pleadings pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999). We reverse in part.

Spencer permits a court to prohibit a litigant, who has filed repetitious and frivolous pleadings and papers, from filing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence, after notice and opportunity to be heard. Id. at 48. Smith’s filing was his fourth amendment to his first' rule 3.850 motion. However, it reached the trial court after the court had ruled on the. pending motion. It was treated and denied as an untimely successive motion. At the State’s urging, the trial court issued a Spencer order to show cause and then issued the sanction order. We affirm the order that denied the amended motion, but reverse the sanction order. Jimenez-Jimenez v. State, 142 So.3d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Wilson v. State, 57 So.3d 1000 (Fla. 4th- DCA 2011). While' we- reverse, we caution Smith that, should he abuse the process by continually filing additional pleadings, he may face the same prohibition again.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 So. 3d 580, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6868, 2016 WL 2342967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeffrey-smith-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack