Grantham v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Grantham v. State

712 So. 2d 851, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8527, 1998 WL 396782

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 17, 1998

DocketNo. 98-1436

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 712 So. 2d 851 (Grantham 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

Grantham v. State, 712 So. 2d 851, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8527, 1998 WL 396782 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. This is the second 3.850 motion filed by appellant that was denied by the trial court as successive and improper. In appellant’s previous 3.850 appeal, we issued a written opinion agreeing with the trial court that appellant’s motion was successive and improper. See Grantham v. State, 695 So.2d 892 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Appellant has continually raised ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary plea claims, which all could have been raised in the first 3.850 motion. We therefore affirm the order denying relief, and prohibit Anthony S. Grantham from filing any further pro se appeals or petitions in this court regarding the judgment and sentence imposed in Osceola County, Case No. CR93-2009. See Davis v. State, 705 So.2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Freeman v. State, 683 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED; FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED.

DAUKSCH, W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. This is the second 3.850 motion filed by appellant that was denied by the trial court as successive and improper. In appellant’s previous 3.850 appeal, we issued a written opinion agreeing with the trial court that appellant’s motion was successive and improper. See Grantham v. State, 695 So.2d 892 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Appellant has continually raised ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary plea claims, which all could have been raised in the first 3.850 motion. We therefore affirm the order denying relief, and prohibit Anthony S. Grantham from filing any further pro se appeals or petitions in this court regarding the judgment and sentence imposed in Osceola County, Case No. CR93-2009. See Davis v. State, 705 So.2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Freeman v. State, 683 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED; FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS PROHIBITED.

DAUKSCH, W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

712 So. 2d 851, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8527, 1998 WL 396782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grantham-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack