JEFF ORR, 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 Orr's third Rule 3.850 motion was untimely, successive, and an abuse of process, warranting summary denial.
Orr filed a third motion for post-conviction relief, alleging illegal consecutive habitual offender sentences for offenses arising from the same crimi…
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 Untimely Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
The trial court’s denial of Orr’s Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed. The reasons need to be clearly stated. First, Orr’s motion is completely without merit. But beyond that, the motion is untimely and successive, and is an abuse of process.
Orr’s judgment and séntences were affirmed by this court without opinion in 1991. Orr v. State, 590 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (mandate issued December 13, 1991). Orr filed a Rule 3.850 motion which the trial court denied, and this court affirmed without opinion. Orr v. State, 613 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Orr then filed two Rule 3.800(a) motions which were summarily denied by the trial court. He appealed. One appeal was dismissed. Orr v. State, Case No. 93-435. The other was affirmed without opinion. Orr v. State, 638 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
Orr then filed his second Rule 3.850 motion alleging he had received illegal consecutive habitual offender sentences for offenses which arose out of the same criminal episode. The trial court summarily denied the motion and this court affirmed without opinion. Orr v. State, 651 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
This is Orr’s third Rule 3.850 motion. It is beyond the two-year limitation of Rule 3.850(b) and Orr has made no effort to set forth the necessary allegations to avoid the time limit. Nor does it appear that he could do so. His challenges to his sentences are identical to those raised in his second Rule 3.850 motion.
Therefore, this motion under consideration is untimely, successive, and an abuse of process. Any further like motions filed by Orr in the future should be stricken by the trial court or this court summarily as an abuse of process. Orr may have nothing else to do but file an endless succession of motions, but the trial court and this court cannot allow such frivolous proceedings to encroach on their limited time and judicial resources.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dennis v. State, 685 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…in this court are as follows: 84-1791, 85-160, 85-2110, 86-659, 86-1805, 86-3035, 86-3037, 87-305, 87-1439, 90-1010, 91-1637, 92-0207, 92-0700, 92-1708, 92-2053, 93-0500, 94-154, 94-2199, 95-1482, 95-0408, 95-2177, 96-1143. . See also On v. State, 657 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Johnson v. State, 652 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). . The state asserts that the trial court has entered an injunction against the defendant which prohibits him from filing any further pro se challenges to his conviction in t…
-
Vaughn v. State, 662 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…Affirmed. Foster v. State, 614 So. 2d 455 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 398, 126 L.Ed.2d 346 (1993); Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1979), abrogated on other grounds, Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla.1991); Orr v. State, 657 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Bourjolly v. State, 639 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).…
-
Vickson v. State, 688 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…affirmed. Appellant shall file no more petitions or motions regarding his conviction and sentence in case number CR89-4421. See Johnson v. State, 680 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Helms v. State, 659 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Orr v. State, 657 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Should he do so he will be in contempt of this court and will be subject to punishment, including a sentence of consecutive time. Mobley v. State, 492 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). It is so ordered. DAUKSCH, COBB and GRIFF…