ABRAM JORDAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Abram Jordan appealed the trial court's order striking his third motion to correct an illegal sentence without addressing the merits of his claims. The appellate court reversed, holding that a trial court must evaluate the substantive merits of postconviction claims and provide notice and opportunity to be heard before imposing sanctions that restrict a litigant's access to courts.
A trial court may not restrict a litigant's access to courts for postconviction relief without first addressing the substantive merits of the claims, determining they are frivolous, and providing the litigant with notice of the intended sanction and an opportunity to show cause why the sanction should not be imposed.
[1] A trial court must address the merits of a litigant's claims and determine they are frivolous before restricting their right to proceed subsequently in court.
[2] Before barring a litigant from filing further pro se attacks on a conviction and sentence, a trial court must provide notice and an opportunity to respond.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“When a trial court denies a motion for postconviction relief and restricts a litigant's right to proceed subsequently in court, it must address the merits of the claims advanced by the litigant and determine that they are frivolous before commencing down the road to bar future filings.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that trial courts must evaluate substantive merits before restricting access to courts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJordan filed a third motion to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court struck the motion as an abuse of process without addressing the merits of …
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 Notice And Opportunity To Respond cases and more on FLexlaw
[*974] PER CURIAM.
Abram Jordan appeals the trial court’s order striking his third motion to correct illegal sentence. In its order, the trial court did not address the merits of any of Jordan’s claims and attached no portions of the record to refute the claims. Instead, the trial court reviewed case law addressing abuse of process, described the number of prior motions filed by Jordan, and struck the motion as an abuse of process. The trial court also directed the clerk of the circuit court to summarily reject and return any additional pro se pleadings regarding Jordan’s 1986 ease, absent further order of the court. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
When a trial court denies a motion for postconviction relief1 and restricts a litigant’s right to proceed subsequently in court, it must address the merits of the claims advanced by the litigant and determine that they are frivolous before commencing down the road to bar future filings. Before depriving the litigant of future access to courts, the trial court must be mindful of certain procedural due process requirements. In State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999), the supreme court held that prior to prohibiting further pro se attacks on a conviction and sentence, the trial court must provide a litigant notice and an opportunity to respond.
Thus, on remand the trial court must first evaluate the merits of the claims advanced. After disposing of the substantive postconviction allegations, should the trial court choose to pursue the sanction of barring Jordan from filing further pro se attacks on his conviction and sentence, it must provide him notice of the intended sanction and provide him an opportunity to show cause why the sanction should not be imposed. The order to show cause should delineate, in detail, the facts upon which the trial court intends to rely to forbid future filings.
We reverse the order of the trial court and remand for consideration of the merits of Jordan’s postconviction claims and, if appropriate, an order requiring him to show cause why a sanction order should not be entered.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. . The phrase postconviction relief as used in this opinion includes motions filed pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McGUIRE v. State, 979 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…(table decision); McGuire v. State, 871 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (table decision); McGuire v. State, 847 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (table decision); McGuire v. State, 656 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (table decision). In Jordan v. State, 760 So. 2d 973, 974 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), this court set forth the proper procedure a trial court must follow in order to impose such sanctions: [T]he trial court must first evaluate the merits of the claims advanced. After disposing of the substantive postconvicti…
-
Fitzgerald v. State, 18 So. 3d 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…State, 941 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). On remand, should the trial court choose to pursue this sanction again, it first must provide Fitzgerald notice and an opportunity to show cause why the sanction should not be imposed. See Jordan v. State, 760 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and case remanded with instructions.…
-
Long v. State, 793 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…chooses to pursue the sanction of barring further pro se filings, provide the litigant with notice of the intended sanction and afford the litigant an opportunity to respond through issuance of a show cause order. See id.; see also Jordan v. State, 760 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for reconsideration pursuant to State v. Spencer. ALLEN, C.J., and VAN NORTWICK, J., CONCUR. . Toler v. State, 493 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)