RONNIE E. CONNOLLY, 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 defendant's successive claims about prior sentences were not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a) and that his current sentence is legal.
[1] Factual claims about prior sentences are not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a) when the illegality cannot be ascertained from the face of the record.
[2] A defendant may be prohibited from filing further pro se motions when good cause has not been shown to justify successive filings.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant, Ronnie E. Connolly, appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. This was his eighth appearance in court f…
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 Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, J.
Twelve years ago, defendant Ronnie E. Connolly entered a plea to the charge of lewd assault upon a child. He now appeals the summary denial of his latest Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. We begin by noting that Connolly’s successive factual claims about his earlier Georgia sentences are not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a). See, e.g., Hawn v. State, 840 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (claim that sentence was illegal based on allegedly erroneous assessment of certain score-sheet points was improperly brought under Rule 3.800(a) because error, if it exists, cannot be ascertained from face of the record). Connolly’s 15-year sentence is legal.
Since this was Connolly’s eighth appearance in this court for this case, we ordered him to show cause why he should not be precluded from filing further pro se motions. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999). We have carefully considered Connolly’s response and find that good cause has not been shown.
Therefore, in order to conserve limited judicial resources, Connolly is prohibited from filing any additional pro se appeals, pleadings, motions and petitions relating to his conviction and sentence in the underlying case. See, e.g., Gaffney v. State, 878 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Proctor v. State, 869 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); see also Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla.2004) (limit on successive claims is necessary to give due weight to the finality and the presumption of legality of a final judgment and to restore the public’s confidence in our criminal system of justice). Any pleadings or papers filed in this Court regarding said conviction and sentence must be reviewed and signed by an attorney licensed to practice in this state. The Clerk of the Fifth District Court of Appeal is directed not to accept any further pro se pleadings or filings from Ronnie E. Connolly in Osceola County, Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Case No. 92-265.
AFFIRMED; FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED.
SAWAYA, C.J. and TORPY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Proctor v. State, 869 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Gaffney v. State, 878 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Mouzon v. State, 878 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Hawn v. State, 840 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Thompson v. State, 840 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)