TANKES v. STATE (2021)

Affirmed.

I would reverse the order prohibiting appellant from further pro se filing in the trial court. His claims as to the legality of his sentence appear to have been filed in good faith, and it is not clear that they were frivolous. The trial court has issued contradictory and confusing rulings with respect to whether appellant's sentence is illegal, and it ruled only in its most recent order that appellant is estopped from attacking his sentence as illegal. One of appellant's claims remains pending, but that claim brought a different challenge to his sentence. Although the claim is not meritorious, see Harris v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), I would not find that the simple filing of the claim should prompt an order barring him from future filing. This is not the type of excessive filing which prompted our supreme court to establish the right of courts to bar litigants from further filing. See Rivera v. State, 728 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1998).

Per Curiam.

Conner, C.J., and KUNTZ, J., concur. Warner, J., dissenting with opinion.