Barton v. State

PER CURIAM. We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.800 motion. However, we reverse that part of the order which imposes sanctions barring appellant from filing any further pro se pleadings in this ease and remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinions in Boston v. State, 722 So.2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), and Spencer v. State, 717 So.2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part. BARFIELD, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.