DEORICK ELLIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Successive Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, W„ J.
Ellis appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In this proceeding, Ellis asserts the trial court improperly departed from the guidelines without written reasons. We affirm.
This motion is successive and violates the law of the case doctrine. In a prior motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), Ellis raised the very same issue, appealed the trial court’s summary denial, and this court affirmed. See State v. McBride, 28 Fla. L. Weekly S401, 848 So. 2d 287,(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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wood v. State, 867 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…dy would now be untimely for Wood.3 It is clear that the rulings in the prior collateral attack raising the same issues presented here became the law of the case and cannot be re-litigated in a subsequent post-conviction motion. See Ellis v. State, 853 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The rulings are both on the merits and binding. This case is an example of why the courts must prohibit repetitive meritless pro se motions and appeals. The waste of judicial time and effort is enormous. Not only does the circu…
-
Williams v. State, 235 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…a) motion. See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 290-91 (Fla. 2003) ‘(noting that, by “barring the filing of successive repetitive 3.800 • motions, [Florida appellate] courts essentially have applied collateral estoppel principles”); Ellis v. State, 853 So. 2d 484, 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (explaining defendant’s successive rule 3.800(a) motion violated law of case doctrine). In his successive motion, Williams alleges his PRR designation is illegal because the trial court used the wrong dates in determining w…
-
Matthews v. State, 987 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Pnce v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). See also Ellis v. State, 853 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Smith v. State, 685 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). SAWAYA, PLEUS and LAWSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Cleon L. Smith v. State, 685 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Thomas v. State, 824 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)