Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Spencergreen2 sentences2021Thus, pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999), Wims shall show cause within twenty days of the date of this opinion why sanctions should not be imposed on him, including a prohibition on further pro se filings in this Court related to the judgment and sentence in Alachua County Circuit Court Case 2011-CF-4346-A, 2 and a referral of this matter to the Department of Corrections for disciplinary action under section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2020). 2017We dismissed the petition and, in accordance with State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999), directed Hawkins to show cause why he should not be barred from filing any future pro se requests for relief and referred to the Florida Department of Corrections for possible disciplinary action pursuant to section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2016). | 5 | 16 |
Ibarra v. Stategreen2 sentences2015It is not necessary to issue a Spencer 1 order before making such a referral, see Fails v. State, 137 So.3d 623, 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Ibarra v. State, 45 So.3d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)), and the prisoner need not be a “frequent-filer” who has previously raised the same or similar claim to be referred for disciplinary action under section 944.279(1), 2 see Johnson v. State, 44 So.3d 198, 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“A claim need not be repetitive to be frivolous or to be an abuse of the post-conviction process. 2012See §§ 944.279(1), 944.28(2)(a), Fla. Stat.; see also Ibarra v. State, 45 So.3d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (explaining that a Spencer order is not required to refer an inmate to DOC for disciplinary action under sections 944.279 and 944.28). | 1 | 2 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015It is not necessary to issue a Spencer 1 order before making such a referral, see Fails v. State, 137 So.3d 623, 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Ibarra v. State, 45 So.3d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)), and the prisoner need not be a “frequent-filer” who has previously raised the same or similar claim to be referred for disciplinary action under section 944.279(1), 2 see Johnson v. State, 44 So.3d 198, 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“A claim need not be repetitive to be frivolous or to be an abuse of the post-conviction process. | 1 | 1 |
Fails v. Stategreen1 sentence2015It is not necessary to issue a Spencer 1 order before making such a referral, see Fails v. State, 137 So.3d 623, 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Ibarra v. State, 45 So.3d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)), and the prisoner need not be a “frequent-filer” who has previously raised the same or similar claim to be referred for disciplinary action under section 944.279(1), 2 see Johnson v. State, 44 So.3d 198, 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“A claim need not be repetitive to be frivolous or to be an abuse of the post-conviction process. | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Johnson, 44 So.3d at 200 (noting that a claim need not be repetitive to be frivolous and stating that a court may sanction a prisoner under section 944.279 regardless of the prisoner’s history of filing); accord Hall v. State, 94 So.3d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Falco v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Johnson, 44 So.3d at 200 (noting that a claim need not be repetitive to be frivolous and stating that a court may sanction a prisoner under section 944.279 regardless of the prisoner’s history of filing); accord Hall v. State, 94 So.3d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Logan v. State
green
1 sentence2019Because it was apparent that Harris was represented by counsel in ongoing criminal proceedings, both petitions were dismissed pursuant to Logan v. State, 846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003). -2- and referred to the Department of Corrections for possible disciplinary action pursuant to section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2018). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Pettway v. State
green
1 sentence2017We dismissed the petition pursuant to Pettway v. State, 776 So.2d 930 (Fla. 2000), and, in accordance with State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999), directed Pray to show cause why he should not be barred from filing any future pro se requests for relief and referred to the Florida Department of Corrections for possible disciplinary action pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2016). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.