Alloy Lewin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alloy Lewin v. State

145 So. 3d 899, 2014 WL 3928398, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12435

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 13, 2014

Docket4D14-1975

StatusPublished

This text of 145 So. 3d 899 (Alloy Lewin v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alloy Lewin v. State, 145 So. 3d 899, 2014 WL 3928398, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12435 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court order summarily denying appellant’s third motion for post-conviction relief and/or habeas corpus petition. This motion was unsworn, untimely, successive and patently without merit. Appellant filed two prior motions for post-conviction relief, the summary denial of which this court affirmed per curiam in Lewin v. State, 881 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), and Lewin v. State, 901 So.2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

Accordingly, we caution appellant that the filing of any future successive and frivolous pro se motions, petitions or appeals attacking his convictions and sentences in this case may result in sanctions, such as a ban on future pro se filings in this court and/or referral to prison officials for disciplinary procedures. See State v. Spencer, 751 So,2d 47 (Fla.1999). See also § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(n).

Affimied.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court order summarily denying appellant’s third motion for post-conviction relief and/or habeas corpus petition. This motion was unsworn, untimely, successive and patently without merit. Appellant filed two prior motions for post-conviction relief, the summary denial of which this court affirmed per curiam in Lewin v. State, 881 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), and Lewin v. State, 901 So.2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

Accordingly, we caution appellant that the filing of any future successive and frivolous pro se motions, petitions or appeals attacking his convictions and sentences in this case may result in sanctions, such as a ban on future pro se filings in this court and/or referral to prison officials for disciplinary procedures. See State v. Spencer, 751 So,2d 47 (Fla.1999). See also § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(n).

Affimied.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 So. 3d 899, 2014 WL 3928398, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alloy-lewin-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.