ROOSEVELT PARKS, 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 affirmed the denial of the motion for postconviction relief.
Defendant challenged his 1970 rape conviction via a motion for postconviction relief. The trial court denied the motion as untimely and successive.…
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 Charging Instrument cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief challenging his conviction for rape, which became final in 1970. The trial court denied the motion as untimely and successive. We affirm.
Defendant’s motion did not present any valid exceptions to the time limitations under the rule. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). Further, Defendant’s motion was successive as the claims could have been raised in one of his previous motions. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236, 1243-44 (Fla.2004).
Finally, Defendant’s claim alleging deficiency in the charging instrument is frivolous. See Logan v. State, 1 So.3d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Defendant is cautioned that abusive, repetitive, malicious, and/or other frivolous filing may result in sanctions, such as a bar on pro se filing in this court, and/or referral to prison officials for disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2012); State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999).
Affirmed.
STEVENSON, HAZOURI and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grant v. State, 125 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Tukes v. State, 115 So. 3d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citing Parks v. State, 101 So. 3d 1265, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), and Jackman v. State, 88 So. 3d 325, 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)); see also Medina v. State, 690 So. 2d 1241, 1249 (Fla.1997) (constitutionality of statute improper subject of Rule 3.850 motion). Based on appellant’s history…
-
Schultheis v. State, 125 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…this “mutual mistake” between the parties. Appellant’s second motion for post-conviction relief is facially untimely, as it was not filed within two years of January 6, 2007, the date his convictions and sentences became final. See Parks v. State, 101 So. 3d 1265, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Appellant attempts to avoid this result by reference to Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1), which allows a motion to be filed under that rule beyond the two-year limitation when the motion is based on newly discovered evidence t…
-
Tukes v. State, 115 So. 3d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…as a motion for post-conviction relief, the motion is facially untimely as it was filed more than seven years after his conviction and sentence became final in violation of the two-year limitation period prescribed by Rule 3.850(b). Parks v. State, 101 So. 3d 1265, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Finally, the motion was correctly described as successive by the trial court. The ground raised here was available to Tukes from the beginning of his post-conviction filings, which included a motion to correct illegal sen…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Logan v. State, 1 So. 3d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)