ISAAC JEAN HELMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Successive Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial judge’s summary denial of Helms’ motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, as an abuse of process. See Foster v. State, 614 So. 2d 455 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 398, 126 L.Ed.2d 346 (1993) (successive motion constitutes abuse of procedure where defendant fails to show any justification); see also Parker v. State, 611 So. 2d 1224 (Fla.1992) (3.850 motion cannot be used for second appeal to consider issues that either were raised on appeal or could have been raised on appeal). Helms’ motion, his third, is identical to his second 3.850 motion which was filed two years earlier. Additionally, as in his second motion, Helms did not swear that the facts were true and correct. The certificate of notary only stated that the defendant took an oath, but did not describe the substance of the oath. Gorham v. State, 494 So. 2d 211 (Fla.1986).
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, GOSHORN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Alves v. Barnett Mortg. Co. & J.J. Kislak Mortg. Corp., 688 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…pecific purge provision adequately informing appellant of the exact dollar amount necessary to purge his contempt. See Rosen v. Rosen, 579 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); see also Small v. Small, 422 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Novak v. Snieda, 659 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Palmer v. Palmer, 530 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Because the purge provision is the contemnor’s key to the jailhouse cell, see Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1277 (Fla.1985), it is essential that the contemnor — and the jai…
-
Belniak v. McWILLIAMS, 44 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…case when he has reasonable grounds to believe that his answers would provide a link in the chain of evidence necessary for a criminal conviction. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.Ct. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951); Novak v. Snieda, 659 So. 2d 1138, 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). But it is not the witness who determines whether the answers fall within the privilege. Rather, “the determination of what answers may incriminate or tend to incriminate cannot be left solely up to the witness but is a matt…
-
DeLEO v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 946 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…trial court failed to do so. DeLeo was entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege if he had “reasonable grounds to believe that his answers would provide ‘a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against him.’” Novak v. Snieda, 659 So. 2d 1138, 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (quoting Rainerman v. Eagle Nat’l Bank, 541 So. 2d 740, 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)). Because Wacho-via sought to compel DeLeo to answer the questions to which he posed an objection, it was necessary to conduct a hearing. See id.…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Foster v. State, 614 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1992)
- Gorham v. State, 494 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1986)
- Parker v. State, 611 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 1992)
- Gholston v. State, 611 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 1992)