FRANK PLUTE, 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.
Frank Plute appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The court affirms the denial, finding no merit in Plute's claims, and cautions that future similar frivolous appeals will result in sanctions barring him from further pro se filings.
The court affirmed the denial of Plute's motion to correct illegal sentence, finding no merit in the issues he raised. The court determined that Plute's concurrent twenty-five-year sentences as a habitual offender are legal and that his pattern of repetitive, frivolous postconviction appeals constitutes an abuse of judicial remedies.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is properly denied when the issues raised lack merit.
[2] Sentences imposed as concurrent twenty-five-year terms of imprisonment as a habitual offender may be legal even if the underlying sentencing law was previously found unco…
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 intelligence“we expressly held that his subsequent sentences, which are concurrent twenty-five-year terms of imprisonment as a habitual offender, are legal”
Establishes that the sentences Plute is challenging have already been determined to be legal by the court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlute committed armed robberies at multiple McNatt's Cleaners & Laundry establishments in 1997. He was charged with multiple armed robberies, an attem…
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 Sanctions For Frivolous Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
Frank Piute appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We conclude that there is no merit in the issues he raised in his motion and affirm. We also caution Mr. Piute that future similar appeals will likely result in sanctions barring him from further pro se filings.
As we have explained in an earlier opinion, Mr. Piute “apparently developed a fondness for McNatt’s Cleaners & Laundry establishments” in 1997. Plute v. State, 835 So.2d 368, 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). After committing armed robberies at several outlets, the State charged him with multiple armed robberies, an attempted robbery, and robbery. He entered open pleas of guilty to all of the charges. We concluded that his original sentences were illegal due to the unconstitutionality of the relevant sentencing law. See Plute v. State, 765 So.2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, we expressly held that his subsequent sentences, which are concurrent twenty-five-year terms of imprisonment as a habitual offender, are legal. See Piute, 835 So.2d at 369.
After we affirmed his sentences in 2003, Mr. Piute filed six additional appeals relating to the sentences. We have affirmed each of those appeals without written opinions. We now affirm this appeal.
When prisoners abuse the postconviction remedies provided to them, they do more than waste the resources of the judicial system. They delay postconviction proceedings by other prisoners who may actually be entitled to relief. It is entirely possible that a prisoner entitled to immediate release is still in prison because we have been required to spend our efforts reviewing this unnecessary appeal.
Therefore, we caution Mr. Piute that any future postconviction proceeding filed to challenge these judgments and sentences, absent a new claim that has legal merit, is likely to result in a referral to the appropriate institution or facility for disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). If such a referral occurs, this court will also issue an order to show cause why it should not bar Mr. Piute from further pro se filings pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999).
Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Plute v. State, 835 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Plute v. State, 765 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)