Pineiro v. Law Firm of Franklin & Criscuolo, 976 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
Pineiro v. Law Firm of Franklin & Criscuolo, 976 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Wendall Hall v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (flnd, 2025-11-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wendall Hall v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
N.D. Fla. · 2025 · confidence medium
See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999) (a court may prohibit an abusive litigant from filing further pro se challenges to his conviction and sentence as long as the litigant is provided notice and an opportunity to be heard); Hastings v. State, 79 So. 3d 739, 742 (Fla. 2011) (imposing ban on pro se filings); Johnson v. Rundle, 59 So. 3d 1080, 1081 (Fla. 2011) (same); Campbell v. State, 296 So. 3d 893 , 894 (Fla. 2020) (same); Butler v. State, 55 So. 3d 598 , 599–600 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (affirming trial court’s decision to strike motion to correct illegal sentence in accordance…
discussed Cited "see" Gregory Thomas v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mobley v. State, 976 So. 2d 1146, 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (affirming order on appeal and barring pro se appellant from filing any further pleadings after “multiple post-conviction motions” and “abus[e] [of] the judicial process by his successive attacks upon his conviction and sentence”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rodriguez v. MEDERO
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Brewer v. Brewer, 3 So.3d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“Reversal is required where the final judgment is inconsistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement.”); see also Pineiro v. Law Firm of Franklin & Criscuolo, 976 So.2d 1146, 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (reversal and remand required so that the trial court can amend the order to reflect its oral ruling); cf. Hampton v. State, 711 So.2d 200, 201-02 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (remanding the case for the trial court to clarify the defendant’s sentence because the trial court’s oral pronouncement did not clearly indicate what the trial…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sandra PINEIRO, Appellant,
v.
LAW FIRM OF FRANKLIN & CRISCUOLO and Rigoberto Pineiro, husband, Appellees.
4D05-4589.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Feb 20, 2008.
976 So. 2d 1146
Polen.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Hal Vogel, Miami, for appellant.

Barry S. Franklin and Donald G. Criscuolo of Franklin & Criscuolo, North Miami Beach, for appellees.

POLEN, J.

Appellant Sandra E. Pineiro appeals the trial court's orders denying her motion to vacate orders granted in favor of Appellee, Franklin and Criscuolo (F & C), and granting F & C's motions for a charging lien and final money judgment against Pineiro for nonpayment for services rendered. The trial court orally reserved jurisdiction to hold an evidentiary hearing on both parties' section 57.105 claims, but entered a written order reserving jurisdiction only to hear F & C's claims. We affirm the trial court's denial of Pineiro's motion but remand the case to the trial court with instructions to amend the order to reflect its oral ruling reserving jurisdiction to hear both parties' section 57.105 claims. See Romero v. Romero, 916 So.2d 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (reverse and remand portions of written order that did not reflect the trial court's oral pronouncements).

STONE and MAY, JJ., concur.