Antuan R. Golden v. State of Florida

275 So. 3d 262
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 10, 2019
Docket19-0794
StatusPublished

This text of 275 So. 3d 262 (Antuan R. Golden v. State of Florida) 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
Antuan R. Golden v. State of Florida, 275 So. 3d 262 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D19-794 _____________________________

ANTUAN R. GOLDEN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Marianne L. Aho, Judge.

July 10, 2019

PER CURIAM.

We affirm without discussion the denial of Appellant’s rule 3.800 motion challenging the legality of his habitual felony offender designation. Additionally, because the claim raised by Appellant in this motion is exactly the same as the as the claim he raised in a prior rule 3.800 motion that was denied on the merits and affirmed on appeal, 1 we find this appeal to be frivolous and an abuse of process. See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 291 (Fla. 2003) (“Collateral estoppel . . . precludes a defendant from rearguing in a successive rule 3.800 motion the same issue argued

1 Golden v. State, Case No.1D16-4420, 229 So. 3d 1224 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (table). in a prior motion.”); Carroll v. State, 192 So. 3d 525, 526-27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (“The postconviction process does not exist simply to give prisoners something to do in order to help them pass the time as they serve their sentences, and every minute the courts are required to spend on meritless postconviction filings is time that cannot be spent on other potentially meritorious cases.”). Accordingly, we direct the Clerk to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution within the Department of Corrections for potential disciplinary action against Appellant pursuant to section 944.279, Florida Statutes, and the Department’s rules. See Ponton v. Willis, 172 So. 3d 574, 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (explaining that a Spencer order is not required before referring the inmate for disciplinary action based upon a frivolous filing).

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Antuan R. Golden, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

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

Related

State v. McBride
848 So. 2d 287 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)
Roosevelt Carroll, Jr. v. State of Florida
192 So. 3d 525 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Ponton v. Willis
172 So. 3d 574 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Golden v. State
229 So. 3d 1224 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
275 So. 3d 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antuan-r-golden-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2019.