Gadson v. State

776 So. 2d 345, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 466, 2001 WL 55377
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Gadson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 807 So. 2d 817
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 24, 2001·No. No. 3D01-36·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. It is well established that successive motions which were raised on appeal or in prior postconviction proceedings are procedurally barred. See Duncan v. State, 728 So.2d 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(holding that defendant abuses the judicial process by filing successive motions “that attempt to litigate issues that were, could, or should have been raised either on direct appeal or in his previous motions”; and warning defendant that “a prisoner who is found by a court to have brought a frivolous suit, action, claim, proceeding, or appeal in any court is subject to having his or her gain time forfeited.”).

Affirmed.

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

Gadson v. State, 776 So. 2d 345, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 466, 2001 WL 55377 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

776 So. 2d 345 (Gadson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Duncan v. State
728 So. 2d 1237 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)