Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Marshall v. State

Marshall v. State

224 So. 2d 723, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5565
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 8, 1969·No. No. L-283·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have here for review the second of two motions made by defendant to vacate judgment and sentence for the crime of robbery, which was rendered on February 5, 1963. Upon the first motion to vacate being filed, the trial court appointed counsel who represented defendant throughout the full hearing held upon same and who perfected a full appeal from the final judgment. After a full appellate review by this Court, the judgment was affirmed, Marshall v. State, 176 So.2d 110 (Fla.App. 1st 1965).

The second successive motion filed by defendant contains basically the same grounds of attack as the first. Rule 1.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A., states inter alia that the sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner, or appeal on behalf of appellee.

We conclude that this defendant has had his “days” in court and, therefore, sua sponte dismiss this appeal.

Dismissed.

JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

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

Marshall v. State, 224 So. 2d 723, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5565 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

224 So. 2d 723 (Marshall v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Peterson v. State
264 So. 2d 45 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)
May v. State
256 So. 2d 24 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)
Sewell v. State
253 So. 2d 458 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)
Roberts v. State
250 So. 2d 918 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)
Laboda v. State
239 So. 2d 107 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
Saunders v. State
238 So. 2d 680 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)