Tinner v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tinner v. State

194 So. 3d 512, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8790, 2016 WL 3186012

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 8, 2016

DocketNo. 3D15-2746

StatusPublished

This text of 194 So. 3d 512 (Tinner v. State) 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

Tinner v. State, 194 So. 3d 512, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8790, 2016 WL 3186012 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, J.

We find no error and affirm the portion of the trial court’s order finding good cause' to prohibit the defendant from filing any further pro se pleadings, motions, or petitions related to his convictions and sentencing in circuit court case number 92-16967, and directing the clerk of the circuit court to refuse to accept further filings by the defendant' unless they have been reviewed and signed by a duly licensed attorney and member of the Florida Bar in good standing. However, to the extent that the trial court’s order can be read to have also ordered forfeiture of twenty-five percent of the. defendant’s accumulated gain time, we reverse. While the trial court may recommend such a sanction, it cannot itself order the Department of Corrections to impose such a sanction. See § 944,279, Fla. Stat. (2015); Isom v. State, 43 So.3d 776 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Hall v. State, 752 So.2d 575 (Fla.2000).

Affirmed in part; and reversed in part for correction of the order consistent with this opinion.

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

ROTHENBERG, J.

We find no error and affirm the portion of the trial court’s order finding good cause' to prohibit the defendant from filing any further pro se pleadings, motions, or petitions related to his convictions and sentencing in circuit court case number 92-16967, and directing the clerk of the circuit court to refuse to accept further filings by the defendant' unless they have been reviewed and signed by a duly licensed attorney and member of the Florida Bar in good standing. However, to the extent that the trial court’s order can be read to have also ordered forfeiture of twenty-five percent of the. defendant’s accumulated gain time, we reverse. While the trial court may recommend such a sanction, it cannot itself order the Department of Corrections to impose such a sanction. See § 944,279, Fla. Stat. (2015); Isom v. State, 43 So.3d 776 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Hall v. State, 752 So.2d 575 (Fla.2000).

Affirmed in part; and reversed in part for correction of the order consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 So. 3d 512, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8790, 2016 WL 3186012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tinner-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack