JOSE PERRAZA, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Gaston v. State, 141 So. 3d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
  …as an “extreme remedy” which should be reserved for those who have repeatedly filed successive, frivolous, and meritless claims which were not advanced in good faith. See Martin v. Stewart, 588 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); see also Mims v. State, 994 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). In this case, Defendant previously filed a rule 3.800(a) motion and a timely rule 3.850 motion. Although those motions did not succeed, the issues raised were not successive or repetitive and they appeared to have been advanced…
• Bivins v. State, 35 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
  …Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 47 (Fla.1999). Though we are sensitive to the need for judicial economy and the efficient administration of justice, we also observe that pro se litigants are afforded some latitude in the filing of papers. See Mims v. State, 994 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (providing that “denying a pro se litigant the opportunity to file future petitions is a serious sanction, especially where the litigant is a criminal defendant”); Martin v. Stewart, 588 So. 2d 996, 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (referr…
• Jimenez v. State, 88 So. 3d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
  …successive or untimely. See Pleasure v. State, 931 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding successive motions are permitted under Rule 3.800(a) so long as the identical claim has not previously been adjudicated on the merits); accord Mims v. State, 994 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). See also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a) (“A court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it....”). The trial court erred in summarily denying Jimenez’s motion on these grounds. Reversed and remanded for proceedings co…