Case Name: Jeffrey SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2016-05-04
Citations: 197 So. 3d 580
Docket Number: No. 4D15-2566
Parties: Jeffrey SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 197
Pages: 580–580

Head Matter:
Jeffrey SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D15-2566.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 4, 2016.
Jeffrey Smith, Okeechobee, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nancy Jack, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appel-lee. .. .

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Smith seeks review of orders denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule,of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and the related motion for rehearing, as well as an order prohibiting him from filing future pro se pleadings pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999). We reverse in part.
Spencer permits a court to prohibit a litigant, who has filed repetitious and frivolous pleadings and papers, from filing further attacks on his or her conviction and sentence, after notice and opportunity to be heard. Id. at 48. Smith's filing was his fourth amendment to his first' rule 3.850 motion. However, it reached the trial court after the court had ruled on the. pending motion. It was treated and denied as an untimely successive motion. At the State's urging, the trial court issued a Spencer order to show cause and then issued the sanction order. We affirm the order that denied the amended motion, but reverse the sanction order. Jimenez-Jimenez v. State, 142 So.3d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Wilson v. State, 57 So.3d 1000 (Fla. 4th- DCA 2011). While' we- reverse, we caution Smith that, should he abuse the process by continually filing additional pleadings, he may face the same prohibition again.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.