LUMA A/K/A BASTIEN
v.
STATE
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.
A clerk's rejection of a pro se motion is erroneous when no actual order precluding pro se filings was ever entered, even if a prior show cause order referenced such a prohibition.
[1] A clerk of court may erroneously reject a motion if the basis for rejection is a non-existent order.
[2] An appellate court may treat an appeal from the rejection of a motion to correct an illegal sentence as a petition for writ of mandamus.
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 intelligenceLuma mailed a motion to correct an illegal sentence on May 25, 2017, but the clerk returned it claiming it was previously returned pursuant to an Orde…
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 Pro Se Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed January 17, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D17-1344 Lower Tribunal No. 97-29656
________________
Herby Luma a/k/a Ronet Bastien,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Daryl E. Trawick, Judge.
Herby Luma a/k/a Ronet Bastien, in proper person.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jeffrey R. Geldens, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SALTER, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
FERNANDEZ, J.
Herby Luma, a/k/a Ronet Bastien, appeals the trial court’s rejection of his motion to correct illegal sentence mailed to the clerk of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit on May 25, 2017. We treat this appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus. The record in this case, at page 70, reflects a memorandum written by a deputy clerk of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit explaining as follows:
The Record on Appeal will be prepared without the Motion to Correct
Sentence mailed to this office on May 25, 2017. A diligent search of the court file was conducted and it could not be located because it was returned to the defendant pursuant to the Order Prohibiting dated
September 13, 2016.
Although an order to show cause why the appellant should not be precluded from further pro se filings was entered by the trial court, no order actually precluding pro se filings was ever entered. The September 13, 2016 order simply refers to a non-existent order that purportedly prohibited further pro se filings.
Thus, it appears that the clerk of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit erroneously rejected the appellant’s motion.
On remand, the trial court shall consider and rule upon the appellant’s motion, should he wish to re-transmit it to the trial court. We express no view as to the merits of the motion. The trial court is not precluded from again entering an order to show cause, if appropriate, and acting upon it based on the appellant’s response, or lack thereof, by either entering an order prohibiting appellant from filing any additional pleadings in the trial court unless signed by a member of the
Florida Bar in good standing, or by discharging the show cause order. See State v.
Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999).
Petition granted.