Lance Saltzman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lance Saltzman v. State

154 So. 3d 438, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20457, 2014 WL 7150614

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 17, 2014

Docket4D14-4181

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 154 So. 3d 438 (Lance Saltzman 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

Lance Saltzman v. State, 154 So. 3d 438, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20457, 2014 WL 7150614 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s untimely and successive rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We reject appellant’s claim that the trial court was required to consider the “supplemental ground” that he filed before the State had responded to his motion. The supplemental ground was unauthorized because, effective July 1, 2013, appellant needed leave of Court to file an amendment after the court had issued an order requiring a response. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(e); In re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure, 132 So.3d 734 (Fla. 2013).

Further, we have reviewed the “supplemental ground” and find that it raises a frivolous and procedurally barred claim regarding an alleged defect in the charging information. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.140(o). Appellant is cautioned that the filing of frivolous postconviction proceedings may result in the sanction of the courts no longer accepting his pro se filings and referral to prison officials for disciplinary procedures. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999); § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2014).

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, CONNER 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 summary denial of appellant’s untimely and successive rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We reject appellant’s claim that the trial court was required to consider the “supplemental ground” that he filed before the State had responded to his motion. The supplemental ground was unauthorized because, effective July 1, 2013, appellant needed leave of Court to file an amendment after the court had issued an order requiring a response. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(e); In re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure, 132 So.3d 734 (Fla. 2013).

Further, we have reviewed the “supplemental ground” and find that it raises a frivolous and procedurally barred claim regarding an alleged defect in the charging information. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.140(o). Appellant is cautioned that the filing of frivolous postconviction proceedings may result in the sanction of the courts no longer accepting his pro se filings and referral to prison officials for disciplinary procedures. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999); § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2014).

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, CONNER and FORST, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 So. 3d 438, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20457, 2014 WL 7150614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lance-saltzman-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack