Flowers v. State

812 So. 2d 474, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2377, 2002 WL 342111
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Flowers v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 755 So. 2d 708
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 6, 2002·No. No. 4D01-4641·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of petitioner’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion which raised the claims previously raised and rejected by the circuit court in two prior motions to correct sentence. The circuit court’s rulings were affirmed by this court in Flowers v. State, 766 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), and Flowers v. State, 688 So.2d 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Any future pro se petition or appeal raising the same issues previously resolved in this court will constitute an abuse of the judicial system, for which sanctions may be imposed. See Prince v. State, 719 So.2d 346, 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 732 So.2d 328 (Fla.1999).

WARNER, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

Flowers v. State, 812 So. 2d 474, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2377, 2002 WL 342111 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

812 So. 2d 474 (Flowers v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Prince v. State
719 So. 2d 346 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)