JAMES HERBERT LACEY, 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 appellate court affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate a sentence, holding that the defendant had already had his claims fully litigated and should cease filing repetitive motions. The case highlights the court's frustration with repeated, meritless post-conviction relief attempts.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the appellant's third motion to vacate his sentence because his claims have been fully litigated and ruled upon previously.
“After a thorough study of the record it appears that the same facts alleged by petitioner have previously been ruled upon three times by the trial court.”
Establishes the court's finding that the appellant's claims were repetitive.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, James Herbert Lacey, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He subsequently filed three motions to va…
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.
Appellant appeals from the order denying his third motion to vacate and set aside sentence pursuant to CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A. Appellant was indicted by the grand jury for first degree murder. He was found guilty by the jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. Since that time he has filed three motions to vacate and set aside judgment under Rule 1.850, each of which was denied by the trial court. One of the orders denying his motion to vacate and set aside judgment and sentence has previously been appealed and affirmed by this court, 216 So.2d 522, thus making this the third Rule 1 motion and the second appeal to this court.
After a thorough study of the record it appears that the same facts alleged by petitioner have previously been ruled upon three times by the trial court. We know of no way to prevent appellant from continuing to file Rule 1 motions since he has the rest of his natural life in Raiford to do so. However, we hope that he feels as we do that he has had his day in court, has received a fair trial, and has had his motions to dismiss and vacate impartially reviewed. It is hoped that he will not see fit to continue filing these motions for the rest of his life.
The order denying appellant relief is hereby affirmed.
PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lacey v. State, 234 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1969)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 227 So. 2d 90.…
Authorities Cited
- Courten v. Ford Motorcredit Co., 216 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Lacey v. State, 216 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)