ROBERT TILLERY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1998-02-20
No. 98-281
DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.
705 So. 2d 722 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1998) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
GOSHORN, Judge.

GOSHORN, Judge.

The issues Tillery raises were argued by him in his appeal from the denial of a previ ous 3.850 motion and were rejected by this court in a per curiam affirmance without opinion. See Tillery v. State, 702 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). His successive post-conviction motion was thus improper. Foster v. State, 614 So. 2d 455 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 951, 114 S.Ct. 398, 126 L.Ed.2d 346 (1993); Penn v. State, 688 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Accordingly, we affirm the denial thereof, but write to draw Tillery’s attention to O’Brien v. State, 689 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA) (Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996 requires that procedural bars to collateral review be strictly enforced; prisoners proceeding frivolously are subject to having all or part of gain time forfeited), rev. denied, 697 So. 2d 511 (Fla.1997).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Maynard Witherspoon v. State, 710 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
    …s v. Construction Trades Qualifying Board of Dade County, 231 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). We caution Witherspoon that bringing any more successive collateral attacks raising these same issues may result in his loss of gain time. Tillery v. State, 705 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). See Davis v. State, 705 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Bradley v. State, 703 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Brown v. State, 702 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Rooney v. State, 699 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Mercade v.…
  • Owens v. State, 707 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
    …Accordingly, this motion is successive and improper. We admonish Owens that additional collateral attacks on his judgment and sentence, which are like this one, successive and improper, will expose him to forfeiture of gain time. Tillery v. State, 705 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). See O’Brien v. State, 689 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 697 So. 2d 511 (Fla.1997). AFFIRMED. COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw