Nettles v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nettles v. State

818 So. 2d 600, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6013, 2002 WL 851275

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 3, 2002

DocketNo. 5D02-710

StatusPublished

This text of 818 So. 2d 600 (Nettles 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

Nettles v. State, 818 So. 2d 600, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6013, 2002 WL 851275 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is the defendant’s fifth 3.850 motion, which prompted the trial court to say “enough is enough.” See Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The defendant’s attempt to bring his case within the attorney negligence exception to the two year limitation period is not convincing, as the defendant had previously filed a timely pro se 3.850 motion, and the second 3.850 motion prepared by counsel was found to be not only untimely, but successive and an abuse of procedure. The court in denying the second 3.850 motion specifically found that the issue presented therein or a similar issue was previously raised in the defendant’s first 3.850 motion. Any further filings concerning this case will result in an order directing the clerk to refuse all documents submitted on behalf of Nettles that are not signed by an attorney. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999) (court must provide litigant notice and reasonable opportunity to respond before prohibiting further pro se attacks on conviction and sentence as a sanction for filing repeated and frivolous motions).

AFFIRMED.

COBB, SHARP, W. and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is the defendant’s fifth 3.850 motion, which prompted the trial court to say “enough is enough.” See Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The defendant’s attempt to bring his case within the attorney negligence exception to the two year limitation period is not convincing, as the defendant had previously filed a timely pro se 3.850 motion, and the second 3.850 motion prepared by counsel was found to be not only untimely, but successive and an abuse of procedure. The court in denying the second 3.850 motion specifically found that the issue presented therein or a similar issue was previously raised in the defendant’s first 3.850 motion. Any further filings concerning this case will result in an order directing the clerk to refuse all documents submitted on behalf of Nettles that are not signed by an attorney. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999) (court must provide litigant notice and reasonable opportunity to respond before prohibiting further pro se attacks on conviction and sentence as a sanction for filing repeated and frivolous motions).

AFFIRMED.

COBB, SHARP, W. and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

818 So. 2d 600, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6013, 2002 WL 851275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nettles-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack