GERALD PLESANT BURNSED, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2000-04-07
No. 2D00-409
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
761 So. 2d 1139 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2000) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Gerald Plesant Burnsed, Jr., appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court denied the motion as being successive and an abuse of procedure. Because rule 3.800 contains no proscription against successive motions, a motion brought pursuant to that rule cannot be denied on this ground. See Burns v. State, 637 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Such an error would ordinarily require reversal. In the interest of judicial economy, however, we reviewed Burnsed’s motion and determined that neither of his claims is cognizable in a proceeding pursuant to rule 3.800. See Gartrell v. State, 626 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1993). We, therefore, affirm the denial of his motion.

Affirmed.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Fuston v. State, 764 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
    …ion of the prior motion, the memorandum in support of the motion, and the order denying the motion. As Fuston correctly points out in his initial brief, there is no proscription against filing successive rule 3.800(a) motions. See Burnsed v. State, 761 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, a defendant is not entitled to successive review on a rule 3.800(a) motion of a specific issue which has already been decided against him. See Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Nevertheless, [*780] Fusto…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw