JERRY SCOTT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendant's current motion for post-conviction relief was successive and raised issues already decided, thus it must be denied.
[1] A successive motion for post-conviction relief raising issues previously litigated and denied is legally insufficient and must be denied.
[2] A defendant is barred from raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on a piecemeal basis by filing successive post-conviction motions.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant appealed the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. This was his second such appeal, and the issues raised …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Successive Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
This is another successive and repetitive proceeding seeking collateral relief filed by a criminal defendant after conviction. Recently this court has been showered by a number of such cases. We realize these cases are generally handled by the appellant pro se, and that as such the appellant is not an attorney. However, Scott, the defendant in this case, is approaching an abuse of process and an exhaustion of this court’s patience. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Martin v. Garrison, 658 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Lowery v. Kaplan, 650 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
Scott appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for post conviction relief. He was convicted of aggravated battery and sentenced as an habitual offender to twenty-five years in prison. We affirmed his judgment and sentence in 1993. Scott v. State, 621 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
In 1994, Scott filed his first 3.850 motion alleging five claims for ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the motion, finding inter alia, the claims to be without merit. Scott appealed. We affirmed the trial court. Scott v. State, 644 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
This is Scott’s second appeal from a denial of a rule 3.850 motion. In this proceeding, Scott again claims ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court ruled all claims were legally insufficient and Scott appealed.
The issues raised by Scott in this proceeding are in substance the same as those raised in his first 3.850 motion. As such, they are successive and must be denied. See Ragan v. State, 643 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Even if Scott’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel were different this time around, he would be barred from raising them on a piecemeal basis by filing successive motions. Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla.1991).
We affirm the trial court’s denial of Scott’s motion for collateral relief.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Brien v. State, 689 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…of process); Leone v. State, 657 So. 2d 26, 27 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (petition is abuse of process; arguments have little or no merit; arguments could and should have been raised either on direct appeal or in first rule 3.850 motion); Scott v. State, 656 So. 2d 204, 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (issues raised are same as those raised in first 3.850 motion; motion is successive and must be denied); Johnson v. State, 652 So. 2d 980, 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("unlucky” thirteenth post-conviction attack; to protect limi…
-
Johnson v. State, 680 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…on seems not to have heard our message that a defendant is entitled to but one “bite at the apple” or that “enough is enough.” Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). See Leone v. State, 657 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Scott v. State, 656 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Johnson v. State, 652 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Even Herman Melville had to come to an ending in Moby Dick. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s ruling that filing this motion constitutes an abuse of process. We furth…
-
Shironald Beauford v. State, 689 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…eauford is barred from raising issues which could or should have been raised in his first Rule 3.850 motion. This one attempts to do that and thus it is successive and improper. See Henry v. State, 679 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Scott v. State, 656 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH, W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1991)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Ragan v. State, 643 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Lowery v. The Honorable Stanton S. Kaplan, 650 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Martin v. Hon. Edward Garrison and Hon. Harold J. Cohen, 658 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)