Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Beam v. State

Beam v. State

60 So. 3d 1096, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5366, 2011 WL 1431611
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 15, 2011
DocketNo. 5D11-899
StatusPublished

This text of 60 So. 3d 1096 (Beam 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
Beam v. State, 60 So. 3d 1096, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5366, 2011 WL 1431611 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Beam appeals the dismissal of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. While the trial court erroneously believed it did not have jurisdiction to consider Beam’s motion, see Gawronski v. State, 801 So.2d 211 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2001), we nonetheless affirm, concluding Beam’s second rule 3.850 motion to be procedurally barred as an abusive, successive motion. See Owen v. Crosby, 854 So.2d 182 (Fla.2003); Christopher v. State, 489 So.2d 22 (Fla.1986).

AFFIRMED.

MONACO, C.J., GRIFFIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Christopher v. State
489 So. 2d 22 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
Gawronski v. State
801 So. 2d 211 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Owen v. Crosby
854 So. 2d 182 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 So. 3d 1096, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5366, 2011 WL 1431611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beam-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.