CARRASCO v. STATE (2019)

The appellant, Adam Carrasco, appeals the order summarily denying his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence, requiring him to state in writing why the court should not prohibit him from further pro se challenges to his conviction and sentence in this case, and barring him from filing any further pro se motions. Appellant argues that the court improperly issued a show cause order pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999), while at the same time barring him from any further pro se filings.¹

We agree that the court erred in imposing sanctions because it appears from the record that appellant was not afforded procedural due process under Spencer. That case mandates that the trial court issue an order to show cause and allow the defendant to respond before considering sanctions. Spencer, 751 So.2d at 48; see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(n)(3).

The state correctly concedes that appellant is entitled to an opportunity to respond. The matter is remanded to the trial court to either attach records to establish that appellant received notice and was given an opportunity to be heard or to issue an order to show cause in accordance with Spencer. See Williams v. State, 108 So.3d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

Affirmed in part and remanded with instructions.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Appellant raises one additional argument on appeal. We affirm without further comment.

Per Curiam.

May, Ciklin and Kuntz, JJ., concur.