DAVID LAKE, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of David Lake's Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct his sentence and imposed sanctions against him for repeated abuse of the postconviction appellate process. Lake, who was convicted in 1998 of carjacking, robbery, and aggravated fleeing and elucing following a brutal service station attack, had filed eleven frivolous cases in the appellate court raising baseless claims about prosecutor error.
The court affirmed the denial of Lake's Rule 3.800(a) motion because he did not present an illegal sentence that could be corrected at any time but instead attempted an untimely, successive, and procedurally barred challenge to his plea based on a claim previously rejected on direct appeal. The court imposed sanctions requiring Lake to retain Florida Bar counsel to sign all future filings and certify good faith basis for each claim.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) is limited to claims of illegal sentences that can be corrected at any time, not untimely or successive challe…
[2] A prosecutor's misstatement of a victim's name during the factual basis for a plea does not constitute an illegal sentence or manifest injustice.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Appellant did not allege an 'illegal sentence' that can be corrected at any time, but instead attempted to present an untimely, successive, and procedurally barred challenge to his plea.”
The court's explanation that Lake's Rule 3.800(a) motion did not qualify as a claim of illegal sentence subject to the statute's provisions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1998, Lake brutally attacked a woman in a service station, beating her unconscious and slamming her head into the floor, causing severe injuries re…
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 Rule 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. Appellant has filed numerous postconviction challenges and appeals and was previously warned against frivolous filing in case number 4D10-5186. In this case, because of appellant’s ongoing abuse of postconviction process, we issued an order to show cause pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999). We conclude that sanctions are appropriate.
In 1998, appellant brutally attacked a woman inside a service station beating her unconscious and slamming her head into the floor. The victim suffered severe injuries and spent three days in the hospital. He then took her belongings, including her car keys, and fled with her car. He entered a plea in 1999 to carjacking, robbery, and aggravated fleeing and eluding. This court affirmed the convictions and sentences in 2001. Lake v. State, 793 So.2d 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (table) (case number 4D99-3929).
*1047In the Rule 3.800(a) motion on appeal, appellant did not allege an “illegal sentence” that can be corrected at any time, but instead attempted to present an untimely, successive, and procedurally barred challenge to his plea. Appellant alleged “manifest injustice” because during the factual basis announced for his June 1999 plea the prosecutor at certain points misstated the name of the victim. This same claim was raised and rejected on direct appeal, and the repetition of the claim in this posture is devoid of any arguable merit.
Appellant’s response to this court’s order to show cause maintains his frivolous allegation that he was convicted of an “uncharged” crime because of the prosecutor’s slip of the tongue in reciting the name of the victim during certain points of the factual basis. Appellant does not excuse his ongoing abuse of postconviction process. Appellant has initiated eleven cases in this court since his conviction, including two appeals of Rule 3.850 denials, an appeal of a habeas corpus denial, and four appeals from Rule 3.800(a) denials. None of appellant’s postconviction motions and appeals have been found to have merit.
“Enough is enough.” Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Appellant’s abuse of postconviction process interferes with the right of access to court for others and damages the remedy. See McCutcheon v. State, 44 So.3d 156, 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is directed to no longer accept any paper filed by David A. Lake unless that paper has been signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar and that member certifies that a good faith basis exists for each claim presented. Further, we direct the Clerk to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures. § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2012).
Affirmed. Sanctions imposed.
WARNER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson Cuffy v. State, 190 So. 3d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(h). Abuse of postconviction procedures consumes limited court resources and delays access to courts for others by impeding the ability of courts to consider legitimate claims. See Lake v. State, 115 So. 3d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citing McCutcheon v. State, 44 So. 3d 156, 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). Accordingly, we impose the sanction of no longer accepting petitioner’s pro se filings directed at his conviction and sentence in lower tribunal case num…
-
Oliveira v. State, 124 So. 3d 964 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…be barred with respect to future pro se filings pursuant to State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(m). We have reviewed Oliveira’s response and conclude that sanctions are appropriate. Lake v. State, 115 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citing Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)); see also McCutcheon v. State, 44 So. 3d 156, 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Accordingly, the Clerk of this court is directed to no longer accept any paper filed by Mark…
-
Potter v. State, 127 So. 3d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…clude seven appeals from orders denying motions for rules 3.800(a) and 3.850 relief.1 We conclude that appellant’s abuse of the postconviction process interferes with the right of access to court for others and damages the remedy. See Lake v. State, 115 So. 3d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citing McCutcheon v. State, 44 So. 3d 156, 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), review denied, 75 So. 3d 1245 (Fla.2011)). Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is directed to no longer accept any paper filed by Jeffrey Potter arising…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- McCUTCHEON v. State, 44 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)