CHARLIE T. WASHINGTON, 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.
Washington appealed the summary denial of his third Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging his sentences as improper guideline departures. The court affirmed, holding that the motion was successive and improper because it raised identical issues already rejected in prior proceedings, and warned against future repetitive filings.
The motion was properly denied as successive and improper because it raised the same sentencing issues already rejected in a prior 3.800(a) proceeding. The court affirmed the summary denial and warned that future repetitive filings may result in sanctions, including an order barring Washington from filing additional collateral attacks without endorsement by a licensed attorney.
[1] A motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) seeking relief on issues previously raised and rejected in a prior 3.800(a) proceeding is successiv…
[2] Courts may impose sanctions, including barring future filings, against defendants who repeatedly file successive and repetitive collateral attack motions.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“These are the same issues raised and rejected in Washington's prior rule 3.800(a) proceeding. Thus, they are successive and improper.”
Establishes the court's holding that the motion was properly rejected because it raised identical claims to a prior motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWashington had been convicted and his convictions affirmed on direct appeal. He subsequently filed multiple collateral motions including two prior Rul…
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
[*700] SHARP, W., J.
Washington appeals from the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.
Washington’s original convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. See Washington v. State, 768 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). He then began the collateral challenges:
1. Washington filed a motion pursuant to rule 3.850 which was denied and the denial was affirmed on appeal. See Washington v. State, 800 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
2. Washington filed a motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a) which was denied and the denial was affirmed on appeal. See Washington v. State, 814 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
3. Washington filed a motion pursuant to rule 3.850, which was denied and the denial was affirmed on appeal. See Washington v. State, 833 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
4. Evidently Washington also filed a second motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a) which was denied, but no appeal has been taken, and a motion to modify sentence which was also denied.
In this third rule 3.800(a) proceeding, Washington’s claims are unclear, but he alleges as best we can decipher, that his sentences are improper departures and illegal because they exceed the guidelines. These are the same issues raised and rejected in Washington’s prior rule 3.800(a) proceeding. Thus, they are successive and improper. See McBride v. State, 810 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. granted, 825 So. 2d 935 (Fla.2002).
It is a waste of judicial attention and effort for trial courts and appellate courts to have to consider such repetitive motions filed by convicted defendants. We warn Washington against filing additional motions or proceedings seeking repetitive relief, or relief which should have been brought or sought in direct appeal proceedings or prior motions. If successive and repetitive relief from his convictions are brought in the future they may result in sanctions, including an order from this court barring him from filing additional collateral attacks on those convictions and sentences without obtaining the co-signature and endorsement by a person licensed to practice law in this state. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). See also State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999).
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, CJ., and PETERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Washington v. State, 867 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…cial system has meted out to Washington. In an earlier appeal to this court involving the denial of Washington’s third Rule 3.800(a) motion, this court warned Washington that further successive motions “may result in sanctions.” Washington v. State, 838 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In that opinion, the court set forth Washington’s earlier collateral challenges as follows: 1. Washington filed a motion pursuant to rule 3.850 which was denied and the denial was affirmed on appeal. See Washington v. State, 80…
-
Washington v. State, 959 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…deny the petition. When this court affirmed the denial of his third Rule 3.800(a) motion in 2003, we expressly warned Washington that further collateral attacks on his convictions and sentences would be successive and improper. Washington v. State, 838 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). We also warned the defendant against further pro se collateral attacks when he appealed the denial of his fourth Rule 3.800(a) motion in 2004. Washington v. State, 867 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Undaunted, the defendant has…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Antoine L. McBRIDE v. State, 810 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Griffin v. State, 800 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Washington v. State, 800 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)