Hallmon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hallmon v. State

139 So. 3d 405, 2014 WL 2099759, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 7639

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 21, 2014

DocketNo. 4D14-394

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 So. 3d 405 (Hallmon 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

Hallmon v. State, 139 So. 3d 405, 2014 WL 2099759, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 7639 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s two Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motions to correct illegal sentence. Appellant has not established an “illegal sentence” which can be corrected at any time. See Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173 (Fla.2001). Instead, appellant has filed a procedurally barred and untimely challenge to his conviction. See King v. State, 127 So.3d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Because this court previously has warned appellant about filing frivolous post-conviction motions, we direct the Clerk of this Court to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures, including forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2013); Steed v. State, 120 So.3d 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Further, we warn appellant that future frivolous filings will result in additional sanctions, such as a bar on pro se filings in this court. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999).

Affirmed with referral for consideration of disciplinary procedures.

TAYLOR, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s two Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motions to correct illegal sentence. Appellant has not established an “illegal sentence” which can be corrected at any time. See Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173 (Fla.2001). Instead, appellant has filed a procedurally barred and untimely challenge to his conviction. See King v. State, 127 So.3d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Because this court previously has warned appellant about filing frivolous post-conviction motions, we direct the Clerk of this Court to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures, including forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2013); Steed v. State, 120 So.3d 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Further, we warn appellant that future frivolous filings will result in additional sanctions, such as a bar on pro se filings in this court. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999).

Affirmed with referral for consideration of disciplinary procedures.

TAYLOR, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 So. 3d 405, 2014 WL 2099759, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 7639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hallmon-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack