WILLIE STEED, 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 appellant's motion did not establish an illegal sentence and attempted to raise procedurally barred claims, thus affirming the trial court's denial.
Appellant filed a motion challenging his plea to escape, alleging an illegal sentence due to exceeding statutory maximums, conviction of a non-existen…
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 Procedurally Barred Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s Rule 3.800(a) motion which attempted to challenge his 1986 plea to escape in this case. The motion does not establish an “illegal sentence” that can be corrected at any time under the rule. Instead, the motion attempts to bring procedurally barred and untimely challenges to the conviction. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850.
Appellant alleges in Ground 1 that his fifteen year sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. This allegation is false as escape is a second-degree felony. § 944.40, Fla. Stat. (1985). Appellant also claims that he was convicted of a non-existent offense and that the information was defective because it did not allege that the *114prosecutor had received sworn testimony from a material witness. It is now well-established that such claims are frivolous. Logan v. State, 21 So.3d 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Collins v. State, 97 So.3d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Appellant raises another frivolous claim that his “scoresheet is illegal” because it was not signed by the judge. In an addendum, appellant attempted to go behind his plea and argued a procedurally barred claim that the evidence was insufficient to support an escape conviction.
The Clerk of this Court is directed to forward a certified copy of this order to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures, including forfeiture of gain time. § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). Appellant is cautioned that further frivolous filing may result in additional sanctions such as a bar on pro se filing in this court. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999).
Affirmed. Appellant referred for consideration of disciplinary procedures.
STEVENSON, MAY and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. State, 127 So. 3d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…cted at any time. See Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173, 1178 (Fla.2001). Instead, the motion attempts to bring a procedurally barred and untimely challenge to that conviction, an improper basis for the motion under rule 3.800(a), see Steed v. State, 120 So. 3d 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Moreover, since appellant has raised this very claim twice before, the order is subject to affirmance based on collateral estoppels. Kittles v. State, 83 So. 3d 958, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA), mandamus dismissed, 90 So. 3d 271 (Fla.201…
-
Hallmon v. State, 139 So. 3d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…tions, we direct the Clerk of this Court to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures, including forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2013); Steed v. State, 120 So. 3d 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Further, we warn appellant that future frivolous filings will result in additional sanctions, such as a bar on pro se filings in this court. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999). Affirmed with referral for consider…
-
Dinkins v. State, 162 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…udulent tes [*3] timony. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). This Court rejected the first two points when it affirmed the trial court’s denial of appellant’s 2008 rule 3.850 motion. Dinkins v. State, 7 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). See Steed v. State, 120 So. 3d 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (characterizing the claims as frivolous). This Court subsequently affirmed the denial of appellant’s second rule 3.850 motion, which was untimely and meritless. Dinkins v. State, 125 So. 3d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Based on app…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Winton Roger Collins v. State, 97 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Logan v. State, 21 So. 3d 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)