Burnsed v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burnsed v. State

761 So. 2d 1139, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4164, 2000 WL 355525

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 7, 2000

DocketNo. 2D00-409

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 761 So. 2d 1139 (Burnsed 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

Burnsed v. State, 761 So. 2d 1139, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4164, 2000 WL 355525 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Gerald Plesant Burnsed, Jr., appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court denied the motion as being successive and an abuse of procedure. Because rule 3.800 contains no proscription against successive motions, a motion brought pursuant to that rule cannot be denied on this ground. See Burns v. State, 637 So.2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Price v. State, 692 So.2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Such an error would ordinarily require reversal. In the interest of judicial [1140]*1140economy, however, we reviewed Burnsed’s motion and determined that neither of his claims is cognizable in a proceeding pursuant to rule 3.800. See Gartrell v. State, 626 So.2d 1364 (Fla.1993). We, therefore, affirm the denial of his motion.

Affirmed.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Gerald Plesant Burnsed, Jr., appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court denied the motion as being successive and an abuse of procedure. Because rule 3.800 contains no proscription against successive motions, a motion brought pursuant to that rule cannot be denied on this ground. See Burns v. State, 637 So.2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Price v. State, 692 So.2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Such an error would ordinarily require reversal. In the interest of judicial [1140]*1140economy, however, we reviewed Burnsed’s motion and determined that neither of his claims is cognizable in a proceeding pursuant to rule 3.800. See Gartrell v. State, 626 So.2d 1364 (Fla.1993). We, therefore, affirm the denial of his motion.

Affirmed.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

761 So. 2d 1139, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4164, 2000 WL 355525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burnsed-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack