JERMAINE D. LOGAN, 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 trial court's denial of defendant's motion to clarify, treating it as a motion to correct illegal sentence, and found the motion procedurally barred, untimely, and barred by collateral estoppel, resulting in referral for disciplinary procedures due to frivolous filings.
A motion challenging the sufficiency of a conviction entered after plea does not establish an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and is barred by collateral estoppel when the same claim was previously raised and denied.
[1] A motion challenging the sufficiency of a conviction entered after plea does not constitute a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedu…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Logan filed a motion to clarify challenging the sufficiency of his aggravated battery conviction entered after plea. He had previously raise…
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 Frivolous Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s “motion to clarify,” which we treat as a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
The defendant’s motion challenged the sufficiency of his aggravated battery conviction entered after plea in this case. However, the defendant’s motion did not establish an illegal sentence for purposes of rule 3.800(a). Instead, the defendant has sought a procedurally-barred and untimely request for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See, e.g., Hallmon v. State, 139 So.3d 405, 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Moreover, the defendant already has raised this claim in a previous rule 3.800(a) motion, the denial of which we affirmed on *73appeal. See Logan v. State, 979 So.2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). As a result, collateral estoppel bars this claim. See, e.g., McKeman v. State, 139 So.3d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
Because we warned appellant in Logan v. State, 21 So.3d 917, 918 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), that continued filing of frivolous post-conviction motions would result in sanctions, 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. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 51 (Fla.1999). Further, we warn appellant that future frivolous filings will result in additional sanctions, such as a bar on pro se filings in this court. Id.
Affirmed with referral for consideration of disciplinary procedures.
STEVENSON, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hastings v. McNeil (N.D. Fla. 2024)…to raise constitutional challenges" and "[t]his is mostly due to Logan v. State's prohibition against pro se filings by individuals with counsel.” Id. at 1. Petitioner does not give a citation for the case, but he may be referring to Logan v. State, 149 So. 3d 72 (4th DCA 2014). Petitioner asserts he raised his three grounds in his state habeas petitions but the petitions were dismissed without comment, with a citation to the Logan case; therefore, Petitioner argues, he has exhausted the grounds he has raise…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Logan v. State, 21 So. 3d 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Hallmon v. State, 139 So. 3d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- McKERNAN v. State, 139 So. 3d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)