Summary
vacating order prohibiting the defendant from filing pro se motions as a sanction for filing repetitive rule 3.800 motions because the defendant never raised a claim that was previously adjudicated on the merits
Summary of this case from Bynes v. StateOpinion
No. 1D09-6435.
May 20, 2010.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Michael R. Weatherby, Judge.
Thomas E. Jordan, pro se, Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Appellant, Thomas E. Jordan, challenges the trial court's order barring him from filing future pro se motions. The trial court stated that it was imposing the sanction due to the repetitive nature of Appellant's motions. However, all of Appellant's motions have been filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which allows for the filing of multiple motions. A rule 3.800(a) motion cannot be classified as successive unless it raises a claim that has previously been addressed on the merits. State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 291 (Fla. 2003). In this case, the trial court stopped addressing Appellant's claims on the merits after his second motion, and none of Appellant's ensuing motions raised those previously adjudicated claims. Thus, the trial court incorrectly classified these motions as repetitive, and it erred in sanctioning Appellant on that basis. Mims v. State, 994 So.2d 1233, 1235-36 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). We, therefore, VACATE the trial court's order barring Appellant from filing future pro se motions.
DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.