Pettway v. State

760 So. 2d 203, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4218, 2000 WL 367731
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 12, 2000·No. No. 2D99-1160·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying Pettway’s motion to correct an illegal sentence and prohibiting Pettway from filing future pro-se pleadings that attack his conviction and sentence. Although the Florida Supreme Court, in State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999), held that a trial court must provide a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond before restricting future pro se pleadings attacking a conviction or sentence, it also held that its ruling was prospective, and did not disapprove this court’s ruling in Huffman v. State, 693 So.2d 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). See Spencer, 751 So.2d at 47. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in its ruling.

FULMER, A.C.J., CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

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

Pettway v. State, 760 So. 2d 203, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4218, 2000 WL 367731 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

760 So. 2d 203 (Pettway v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Huffman v. State
693 So. 2d 570 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
State v. Spencer
751 So. 2d 47 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1999)