Jacobrian Bray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jacobrian Bray v. State

142 So. 3d 904, 2014 WL 2957259, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10128

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 2, 2014

Docket4D14-1168

StatusPublished

This text of 142 So. 3d 904 (Jacobrian Bray 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

Jacobrian Bray v. State, 142 So. 3d 904, 2014 WL 2957259, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10128 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of a motion to correct illegal sentence, pursuant to Rule 3.800(a) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The motion raised the same sentencing challenge as did his prior motions for post-conviction relief. The issues are therefore barred by collateral estoppel. We affirm and caution the defendant that the filing of further frivolous appeals will result in sanctions.

In this rule 3.800(a) motion, the defendant challenged a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence imposed for actual possession of a firearm in count one, and the three-year mandatory minimum for actual possession of a firearm in count four. He argued that even though he pled guilty to the charges, the trial court was required to make a specific finding of actual possession to impose the mandatory minimum term under section 775.087(1), Florida Statutes (2006). The defendant’s argument is mer-itless. His guilty pleas to the counts charging actual possession of a firearm mandated imposition of the mandatory minimum terms. See State v. Moore, 854 So.2d 832 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

The defendant is also procedurally barred from raising this challenge because he raised the same or similar challenges in Bray v. State, 995 So.2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and Bray v. State, 68 So.3d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287 (Fla.2003); Kittles v. State, 83 So.3d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

The defendant’s motion is procedurally barred, an abuse of the post-conviction procedure, and meritless. We therefore find this appeal frivolous, and caution the defendant that any future frivolous filing in this court will result in referral to prison officials for consideration of disciplinary procedures, which may include forfeiture of gain-time. §§ 944.279(1), 944.28(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012). The defendant is also cautioned that future frivolous filings may result in sanctions by this court, including a prohibition against pro se filings. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999).

Affirmed.

MAY, CONNER and FORST, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of a motion to correct illegal sentence, pursuant to Rule 3.800(a) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The motion raised the same sentencing challenge as did his prior motions for post-conviction relief. The issues are therefore barred by collateral estoppel. We affirm and caution the defendant that the filing of further frivolous appeals will result in sanctions.

In this rule 3.800(a) motion, the defendant challenged a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence imposed for actual possession of a firearm in count one, and the three-year mandatory minimum for actual possession of a firearm in count four. He argued that even though he pled guilty to the charges, the trial court was required to make a specific finding of actual possession to impose the mandatory minimum term under section 775.087(1), Florida Statutes (2006). The defendant’s argument is mer-itless. His guilty pleas to the counts charging actual possession of a firearm mandated imposition of the mandatory minimum terms. See State v. Moore, 854 So.2d 832 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

The defendant is also procedurally barred from raising this challenge because he raised the same or similar challenges in Bray v. State, 995 So.2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and Bray v. State, 68 So.3d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287 (Fla.2003); Kittles v. State, 83 So.3d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

The defendant’s motion is procedurally barred, an abuse of the post-conviction procedure, and meritless. We therefore find this appeal frivolous, and caution the defendant that any future frivolous filing in this court will result in referral to prison officials for consideration of disciplinary procedures, which may include forfeiture of gain-time. §§ 944.279(1), 944.28(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012). The defendant is also cautioned that future frivolous filings may result in sanctions by this court, including a prohibition against pro se filings. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999).

Affirmed.

MAY, CONNER and FORST, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 So. 3d 904, 2014 WL 2957259, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobrian-bray-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack