Mason v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mason v. State

941 So. 2d 1197, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 18596, 2006 WL 3207920

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 8, 2006

DocketNo. 4D06-3797

StatusPublished

This text of 941 So. 2d 1197 (Mason 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

Mason v. State, 941 So. 2d 1197, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 18596, 2006 WL 3207920 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Leroy Mason appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for rehearing and reply, which the trial court treated as a newly filed motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm, but write to point out that appellant has raised the identical challenge to the legality of his habitual violent felony offender sentence for second degree murder in at least two prior rule 3.800(a) motions to correct illegal sentence, as well as the third motion to correct underlying the subject motion for rehearing and reply.

While this appears to be his first appeal following the denial of his successive rule 3.800(a) challenges in the trial court on the identical issue, his abuse of judicial procedure frustrates the ability of the circuit court to use its available resources to consider the claims of others. Continuation of this abuse will likely result in future imposition of sanctions by the trial court, and this court, if appropriate. See Thurston v. State, 920 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Martin v. Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 627 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

STONE, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Leroy Mason appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for rehearing and reply, which the trial court treated as a newly filed motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm, but write to point out that appellant has raised the identical challenge to the legality of his habitual violent felony offender sentence for second degree murder in at least two prior rule 3.800(a) motions to correct illegal sentence, as well as the third motion to correct underlying the subject motion for rehearing and reply.

While this appears to be his first appeal following the denial of his successive rule 3.800(a) challenges in the trial court on the identical issue, his abuse of judicial procedure frustrates the ability of the circuit court to use its available resources to consider the claims of others. Continuation of this abuse will likely result in future imposition of sanctions by the trial court, and this court, if appropriate. See Thurston v. State, 920 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Martin v. Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 627 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

STONE, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

941 So. 2d 1197, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 18596, 2006 WL 3207920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mason-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack