JAVON LEE WALKER v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 20, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-1592
Lower Tribunal No. F04-3732B
________________
Javon Lee Walker,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L.
Fernandez, Judge.
Javon Lee Walker, in proper person.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and HENDON, JJ.
LINDSEY, J.
Javon Lee Walker was tried and convicted by a jury of his peers for
robbery using a deadly weapon in violation of section 812.13(2)(a), Florida
Statutes (2021), and unlawful possession of a firearm or weapon in violation
of section 790.23(1), Florida Statutes (2021). These convictions were
affirmed on appeal. Walker v. State, 995 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).
Walker filed several post-conviction motions before filing the instant
motion seeking to correct an alleged illegal sentence pursuant Florida Rule
of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The lower court denied this motion in an
order rendered on May 12, 2021, and entered an order requiring Walker to
show cause as to “why he should not be held in contempt for such filings.”
The lower court then entered an order on June 30, 2021, imposing
sanctions and prohibiting Walker from filing any further pro se motions after
finding that Walker’s response failed to establish good cause. Though
Walker had not responded, the order was entered before the time expired
for Walker to file a response. Hence, Walker was not afforded an opportunity
to file a response before being barred from future filings.
We affirm without further discussion the lower court’s May 12, 2021
order denying Walker’s motion to correct his sentence but reverse the June
30, 2021 sanctions order to allow the lower court to rule on Walker’s
response filed on September 1, 2021, and to determine whether sanctions
2
are appropriate in accordance with State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48-49
(Fla. 1999). Basic notions of fairness and due process demand nothing less.
See J.G.G. v. M.S., 312 So. 3d 509, 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (“Procedural
due process requires that litigants be given proper notice and a full and fair
opportunity to be heard. To be sufficient, notice must be ‘reasonably
calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the
pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their
objections.’” (quoting De Leon v. Collazo, 178 So. 3d 906, 908 (Fla. 3d DCA
2015))).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
3