CARL MULLINGS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1989-11-28
No. 89-2129
Before COPE, LEVY and GERSTEN, JJ.
553 So. 2d 287 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1989) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Carl Mullings, appeals from a trial court order denying his motion for post-conviction relief under rule 3.850, Flor ida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm the order of the trial court based upon a holding that the motion was untimely filed; and the issues raised therein were procedurally barred and/or without merit. Rose v. State, 472 So. 2d 1155 (Fla.1985); Zeigler v. State, 452 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1984); Brown v. State, 430 So. 2d 446 (Fla.1983); Ford v. State, 407 So. 2d 907 (Fla.1981); Ponder v. State, 530 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Paez v. State, 512 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Williams v. State, 473 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Wilcox v. State, 586 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
    …court was a successive motion, raising claims obviously known to the appellant at the time of his prior motions. Therefore, the action of the trial court should be affirmed. See Elkins v. State, 555 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Mullings v. State, 553 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Affirmed.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw