RONALD POLK, 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 the prohibition against successive motions applies when prior claims were rejected as legally insufficient and without merit.
Appellant sought to reassert ineffective assistance of counsel claims in a new motion, which were identical to claims in a prior motion.…
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 Legally Insufficient Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
Polk appeals from the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He seeks in this motion to reassert ineffective assistance of counsel claims. He previously filed such a motion, which the trial court denied without a hearing. This court affirmed that order, without opinion. See Polk v. State, 765 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
The claims contained in this motion are the same as those raised in his prior motion: counsel failed to move to suppress physical evidence and failed to subpoena witnesses Rhonda Brown and Rodney Gardner. Polk alleges that the first motion was not decided on the merits, but rather was denied because of procedural defects, because she failed to allege the witnesses not called were available and failed to state how their testimony would have changed the outcome of the trial.
The trial court noted that the ineffective assistance claims had been raised in the prior proceeding, and that they were rejected as both legally insufficient and without merit, as shown by the attachments. Thus, the prohibition against successive motions applies in this ease. See Freeman v. State, 773 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), rev. denied, 805 So. 2d 806 (Fla.2001).
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Noojin v. State, 855 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…o petitions for habeas corpus and his petition for mandamus.1 His current appeal is successive and improper. Accordingly, we warn Mr. Noojin against filing additional successive pleadings in this court regarding his conviction. See Polk v. State, 820 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). His attempt to do so may result in an order instructing the Clerk not to accept further pro se pleadings regarding this case unless signed by an attorney licensed to practice law in Florida. AFFIRMED. SHARP, W. and PETERSON,…
-
Camaroto v. State, 851 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…02-1525, 02-1527, 02-1664, 02-1670. This court prohibited the defendant from any further pro se filings with the exception of direct appeals of post-conviction motions. See Camaroto v. Pomar, 830 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). . See Polk v. State, 820 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Freeman v. State, 773 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), rev. denied, 805 So. 2d 806 (Fla.2001).…
-
Hoggs v. State, 876 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Polk v. State, 820 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Freeman [*1253] v. State, 773 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). PALMER, ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Freeman v. State, 773 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)