ALFONZO EDWARDS, 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 a defendant cannot raise issues concerning the procedural correctness and legality of habitual offender sentences in a successive motion under Rule 3.800(a) if those issues were previously raised and resolved.
Alfonzo Edwards filed a motion seeking review of his habitual offender sentences, asserting issues concerning their procedural correctness and legalit…
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 Frivolous Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
On consideration of defendant Alfonzo Edwards’ motion for rehearing, we withdraw our previously issued opinion and substitute the following opinion:
We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of Edwards’ motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which seeks review of issues concerning the procedural correctness of the manner in which his habitual offender sentences were imposed, and their legality.
These same issues were raised in Edwards’ direct appeal, or should have been, and were resolved against him. Edwards v. State, 712 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). These sentencing issues were raised (among others) in Edward’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and were resolved against him. This court affirmed. Edwards v. State, 743 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
In his current rule 3.800 motion, Edwards again seeks to attack the habituali-zation procedure employed in his case. This issue has been raised previously and resolved against him. Edwards cannot raise it again. See Medina v. State, 690 So. 2d 1241 (Fla.1997); Henderson v. Singletary, 617 So. 2d 813 (Fla.1993); Stroble v. State, 689 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Beauford v. State, 689 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170, 173-74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
As for the merits of Edwards’ claim, he asserts that he is entitled to relief under Summers v. State, 747 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), which interpreted the effect of State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998) upon improper habitualization claims. However, he is wrong because under Summers a mere allegation of a defective habitualization process still does not constitute a claim of an “illegal” sentence.
We caution Edwards against filing more collateral proceedings regarding this case, which are improper because they are successive and repetitive. Even though the Florida Supreme Court has held that this court cannot take away gain time, Hall v. State, 752 So. 2d 575 (Fla.2000), we still have the inherent authority to ban a defendant from filing further frivolous pleadings. See In re Anderson, 511 U.S. 364, 364-366, 114 S.Ct. 1606, 128 L.Ed.2d 332 (1994); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Lau v. State, 717 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. dismissed, 727 So. 2d 907 (Fla.1998). See also McGillis v. Department of Children & Family Servs., 738 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Hope v. State, 766 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…g offense necessary to adjudicate the defendant as an habitual offender does not actually exist; or 3) an habitual offender sentence is imposed for a felony that does qualify for habitual offender treatment. We subsequently held in Edwards v. State, 760 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), that under Summers, “a mere allegation of a defective habitualization process still does not constitute a claim of an ‘illegal’ sentence.” In the instant case, the defendant alleges he did not receive the notice required under…
-
Cooper v. State, 917 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…es upon Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), but Florida law holds that “a mere allegation of a defective ha-bitualization process ... does not constitute a claim of an ‘illegal’ sentence.” Edwards v. State, 760 So. 2d 226, 227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). We affirm. We conclude this appeal is frivolous and an abuse of process. See, e.g., Johans v. State, 901 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Accordingly, we prohibit Harold W. Cooper from filing any further pro se pleadings o…
-
Dennis v. State, 769 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…See Dennis v. State, 656 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Dennis v. State, 681 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Dennis v. State, 703 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Dennis v. State, No. 96-3167 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 16, 1996). . See Edwards v. State, 760 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Lau v. State, 717 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. dismissed, 727 So. 2d 907 (Fla.1998).…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (15 total)
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Medina v. State, 690 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1997)
- Hall v. State of Fla. & Michael W. Moore, 752 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2000)
- Timothy v. Summers, 747 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- In re Anderson, 511 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1994)
- Stroble v. State, 689 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Shironald Beauford v. State, 689 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Darrin McGILLIS v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 738 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)