Bannister v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bannister v. State

935 So. 2d 644, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 13678, 2006 WL 2356160

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bannister v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 990 So. 2d 595 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 16, 2006·No. No. 3D05-2931·Published

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, Judge.

Keith Joseph Bannister (“Bannister”) appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to timely appeal the life sentences he received for second degree murder and attempted first degree murder, which Bannister contends are unlawful. We affirm as (1) the motion is clearly untimely since Bannister entered guilty pleas to these reduced charges on April 9, 1981, over twenty-five years ago; (2) this court has already found the sentences imposed to have been legal on May 14, 2003, see Bannister v. State, 844 So.2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), and again on November 24, 2004, when this court per curiam affirmed the trial court’s denial of Bannister’s motion to correct illegal sentence, see Bannister v. State, 888 So.2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); and (3) the doctrine of laches precludes Bannister from pursuing the instant claim.

Affirmed.

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

ROTHENBERG, Judge.

Keith Joseph Bannister (“Bannister”) appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to timely appeal the life sentences he received for second degree murder and attempted first degree murder, which Bannister contends are unlawful. We affirm as (1) the motion is clearly untimely since Bannister entered guilty pleas to these reduced charges on April 9, 1981, over twenty-five years ago; (2) this court has already found the sentences imposed to have been legal on May 14, 2003, see Bannister v. State, 844 So.2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), and again on November 24, 2004, when this court per curiam affirmed the trial court’s denial of Bannister’s motion to correct illegal sentence, see Bannister v. State, 888 So.2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); and (3) the doctrine of laches precludes Bannister from pursuing the instant claim.

Affirmed.

Bannister v. State, 935 So. 2d 644, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 13678, 2006 WL 2356160 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

935 So. 2d 644 (Bannister v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related