ROBERT FREEMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Successive Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Freeman appeals from the summary denial of this third Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. After his conviction and sentence for sexual battery as an habitual offender was affirmed on appeal, Freeman filed his first Rule 3.850 motion. It was affirmed without opinion. Freeman v. State, 648 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). His second Rule 3.850 motion was affirmed per curiam, as successive. Freeman v. State, 669 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
We likewise affirm this third Rule 3.850 proceeding. It is successive. See Helms v. State, 659 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). It is also untimely since the motion was filed two years and five months after the judgment and sentence became final, and it contains no valid reason why the two year time limit should not be applicable. Fla. Rule Crim. Proc. 3.850(b). We further warn Freeman that future such motions will be stricken as an abuse of process and he may be barred from filing any further pro se appeals regarding his conviction and sentence. See Wareham v. State, 678 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Freeman v. State, 885 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…ent proceeding was successive, and added: ‘We further warn Freeman that future such motions will be stricken as an abuse of process and he may be barred from filing any further pro se appeals regarding his conviction and sentence.” Freeman v. State, 683 So. 2d 1156, 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Freeman continued his post conviction attacks. This court issued a show cause [*478] order pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999) (court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se…
-
Grantham v. State, 712 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ohibit Anthony S. Grantham from filing any further pro se appeals or petitions in this court regarding the judgment and sentence imposed in Osceola County, Case No. CR93-2009. See Davis v. State, 705 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Freeman v. State, 683 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). AFFIRMED; FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED. DAUKSCH, W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.…
-
Grantham v. State, 695 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…ground — involuntary plea. Since the grounds set forth in this motion were raised or should have been raised in the [*893] prior motion, the current motion is both successive and improper, and constitutes an abuse of procedure. See Freeman v. State, 683 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). AFFIRMED. W. SHARP, THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Helms v. State, 659 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Novak v. Snieda, 659 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Donovan Ford v. State, 678 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Wareham v. State, 678 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Edwards v. State, 648 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- McKENZIE v. McKENZIE, 648 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Freeman v. State, 669 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Lowe v. State, 669 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)