HERBERT LEE BUTLER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Gain Time Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus raising issues which have been raised numerous times and rejected by the trial court and by this court. Also, we prohibit appellant from filing any further pleadings with this court raising the issues presented in the petition for writ of habeas corpus which the trial court denied. See sec. 924.051(9), Fla. Stat. (1997), (providing that Legislature intends that terms and conditions of collateral review and procedural bars to collateral review be strictly enforced). We forewarn appellant that a prisoner who is found to have brought a frivolous suit, action, claim, proceeding, or appeal in any court is subject to having all or any part of his or her gain time forfeited. § 944.28(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997).
AFFIRMED.
FARMER, SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 762 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…rty points for victim injury. WARNER, C.J., DELL and GROSS, JJ., concur. . Motions for rehearing are authorized under Florida Rule of-Criminal Procedure 3.850(g). However, such motions cannot be used to raise new grounds for relief. Reid v. State, 745 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). . While an error that renders a sentence illegal can be raised at any time, the scoresheet error alleged in the motion for rehearing would not result in an illegal sentence.…
-
Ayala-Laies v. State, 16 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…in a motion for rehearing after the summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion; a motion for rehearing which, in effect, is an amended motion filed after the court already denied the initial motion is subject to being denied as successive. Reid v. State, 745 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). However, successive motions are not proscribed by rule 3.800(a), so long as review is not precluded by the law of the case or collateral estoppel. See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla.2003). In Williams, the supreme court…
-
Showers v. State, 778 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…is determined. Fla.R.Crim.P. 8.590(a). The first motion was disposed of before the motion to rehear was filed, and thus we cannot treat it as a timely amended motion. Accordingly the second motion appears to be successive. See, e.g., Reid v. State, 745 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (motion for rehearing was in reality an amended 3.850 motion filed after the court had denied the initial motion). We also failed to find any authority for a motion to rehear a motion for new trial in which newly discovered evide…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence