KEITH THOMAS, 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 trial court correctly denied the motion for leave to file a successive 3.850 motion because it was untimely and successive.
Thomas was convicted in 1997 and did not appeal. He subsequently filed various post-conviction motions and petitions, all of which were denied. This a…
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 Successive Postconviction Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
Thomas appeals from the trial court’s denial of his “Motion for Leave to File Successive 3.850 Motion.” We affirm.
Thomas was convicted and sentenced on July 1,1997 in a criminal case. He did not appeal. He filed a post-conviction motion, asserting a Heggs1 issue. The defendant was resentenced under Heggs. The resentencing order was affirmed. See Thomas v. State, 795 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
Thomas then filed a petition for a belated appeal, which this court denied. See Thomas v. State, Case No. 5D01-3321 (denied 12/04/01). Thomas then filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which was denied and the denial was affirmed by this court on appeal. See Thomas v. State, 812 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
In this proceeding, Thomas asserts that he was unaware and misguided as to when a proper motion under rule 3.850 should be filed. The trial court correctly denied the motion because it is successive and untimely. Thomas’ motion was filed well beyond the two-year time limit after his conviction and sentence became final.2 Nor has Thomas demonstrated in this proceeding any basis to come under an exception to the time limit.3 We warn Thomas against bringing additional successive and improper collateral attacks on his 1997 conviction and sentence as it may result in an order from the court barring him from filing additional pleadings attacking that conviction and sentence, pro se. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999).
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, C.J., and PALMER, J„ concur. . Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000).
. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b).
.Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1) & (2).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deorick Ellis v. State, 853 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…Fla. May 15, 2003); Smith v. State, 685 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). We caution Ellis against filing additional successive and improper motions. Enough is enough. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). See also Thomas v. State, 824 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). AFFIRMED. SAWAYA, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.…
-
Quincy Bernard Jones v. State, 848 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…in a successive 3.800 motion the same issue argued in the prior motion. We caution Jones against filing additional successive and improper motions. Enough is enough. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); see also Thomas v. State, 824 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). AFFIRMED. THOMPSON, C.J. and PLEUS, J., concur.…
-
McCULLOUGH v. State, 859 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…case, in which he was convicted of carjacking and for which he received a thirty-year sentence as an habitual offender. See Noojin v. State, 855 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Camaroto v. State, 851 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Thomas v. State, 824 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). AFFIRMED. PETERSON and TORPY, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)