OTIS WOODBERRY, 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.
Otis Woodberry, a prisoner serving thirty years and nine life sentences for violent felonies committed in 1990, filed untimely collateral challenges to his convictions. The court affirmed dismissal of his motions, found his claims procedurally barred and frivolous, and imposed sanctions prohibiting further pro se filings without certification by a Florida Bar member.
Woodberry's claims are procedurally barred and without merit. The Gray argument does not apply retroactively and his conviction has been final since 1993, making the claim untimely regardless of subsequent resentencing. His firearm enhancement claims fail because the State was not required to charge a principal theory separately, and he was properly convicted as a principal. Sanctions are imposed prohibiting further pro se filings without Florida Bar certification.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) must allege an illegal sentence, not an untimely or procedurally barred challenge to a plea.
[2] A claim previously rejected on direct appeal is procedurally barred when raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
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“Gray, which was decided in 1995, does not apply retroactively. State v. Woodley, 695 So.2d 297, 298 (Fla.1997). Woodberry's conviction has been final since the mandate issued on direct appeal in March 1993.”
Establishes that the Gray claim is time-barred because it does not apply retroactively and the conviction became final in 1993, before Gray was decided.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWoodberry is serving thirty years for attempted first degree felony murder with a firearm and nine life sentences for robbery with a firearm, kidnappi…
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 Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
On Order to Show Caüse
Otis Woodberry has filed a number of untimely collateral challenges to his convictions, Because he continues to file frivolous pleadings after receiving a warning and because he has failed to show good cause why sanctions should not be imposed, we prohibit him from further pro se filings.’
Among other counts, Woodberry is serving. thirty years in prison for attempted first degree felony murder with a firearm and nine life sentences for robbery with a firearm, kidnapping with a firearm, and burglary of a dwelling with a firearm for offenses committed in 1990.
. In-thfe'case,.he appealed the dismissal of a rule 3.800(a) motion that raised challenges to his convictions. The trial court explained its dismissal. We affirmed the trial court’s order and issued Woodberry an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for frivolous filing. Woodberry was previously warned in case 4D10-3806 that further frivolous filing would result in sanctions.
Ground one of Woodberry’s motion alleged that his sentence for attempted first degree felony murder with a firearm is illegal because attempted first degree felony murder is a non-existent crime .based on State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552 (Fla.1995). Ground two alleged that his sentences for robbery, kidnapping, and burglary were illegally enhanced based on the use of a firearm. . Woodberry complained that these convictions were based on a principal theory, but he was not charged as a principal and was not charged with actual possession of a firearm. ■
The trial court dismissed the motion, explaining that rule 3.800(a) cannot be used to raise challenges to a conviction, that the time for filing a rule 3.850 motion had expired, and that a rule 3.850 motion would be successive. Moving for rehearing, Woodberry argued the court should have treated his motion as a rule 3.850 motion and allowed him to amend.
Even if his claims had been timely raised in a rule 3.850 motion, they are without merit.
Woodberry has raised his Gray claim at least three times. Woodberry v. State, 953 So.2d 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Woodberry v. State, 827 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Woodberry v. State, 699 So.2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Gray, which was decided in 1995, does not apply retroactively. State v. Woodley, 695 So.2d 297, 298 (Fla.1997). Woodberry’s conviction has been final since the mandate issued on direct appeal in March 1993. Woodberry v. State, 611 So.2d 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The fact that he was later resen-tenced on a postconviction .motion did not restart the time for him to raise postcon-viction challenges to his conviction. See Jones v. State, 922 So.2d 1088, 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (recognizing that collateral proceedings do not toll the time for filing a rule 3.850 motion); Joseph v. State, 835 So.2d 1221, 1222 n. 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (observing that “it would make no sense to allow a judgment to be attacked many years after the expiration of the two-year deadline simply because a sentence was corrected pursuant to a rule 3.800(a) motion”).
Regarding his second point, Woodberry acknowledges in his motion that he was charged with the substantive offenses. The State did not have to specifically charge a principal theory. See State v. Roby, 246 So.2d 566, 571 (Fla.1971). Robbery with a firearm, kidnapping, and *7armed burglary are first degree felonies punishable by life. §§ 787.01(2), 810.02(2), 812.13(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1990). Woodberry was convicted as a principal. He has not shown that his sentences were improperly enhanced. See, e.g., Dotel v. State, 175 So.3d 830, 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).
Woodberry’s continued filing of procedurally barred and frivolous claims interferes with this Court’s ability to consider legitimate claims. In response to this Court’s order, Woodberry failed to show good cause why sanctions should not be imposed. Therefore, the Clerk of this Court is directed to no longer' accept pleadings filed by Woodberry unless signed by a member in good standing with the Florida Bar, who certifies that there is a good faith basis for the claims presented. A copy of this opinion is also being sent to Woodberry’s prison for consideration of disciplinary action. § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2015).
WARNER, GROSS' and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rollo v. State, 253 So. 3d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…. 2d DCA 2007); Steward v. State, 931 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Shortridge v. State, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Brown v. State, 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Hillman v. State, 410 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Woodberry v. State, 193 So. 3d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Lopez v. State, 833 - 2 - So. 2d 283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Roberts v. State, 813 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Harris v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). CASANUEVA, LUCAS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.…
-
Murray v. State, 257 So. 3d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…. Federico, Judge. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 775.082(9)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (2010); State v. Roby, 246 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1971); Ward v. State, 946 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Hillman v. State, 410 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Woodberry v. State, 193 So. 3d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Ellington v. State, 96 So. 3d 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Ives v. State, 993 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Rangel v. State, 937 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Lopez v. State, 833 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Roberts v. State…
-
Bain v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…A 2009); Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Valdez-Garcia v. State, 965 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Shortridge v. State, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Brown v. State, 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Woodberry v. State, 193 So. 3d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Lopez v. State, 833 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Roberts v. State, 813 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Harris v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). CASANUEVA, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Collin Gray, 654 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Roby, 246 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Woodley, 695 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1997)
- Maille Joseph v. State, 835 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Kynyodda Deonne Jones v. State, 922 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Dotel v. State, 175 So. 3d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Woodberry v. State, 611 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)