Oakley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Oakley v. State

21 So. 3d 76, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 15189, 2009 WL 3230474

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 9, 2009

Docket5D09-2221

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 So. 3d 76 (Oakley 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

Oakley v. State, 21 So. 3d 76, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 15189, 2009 WL 3230474 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Louis Oakley (defendant) appeals the final order entered by the trial court summarily denying his third motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The denial was based on the conclusion that the defendant’s motion was untimely, successive, and meritless. We affirm. The defendant is warned that the filing of any additional successive and frivolous pro se petitions or appeals attacking his convictions and sentences entered in Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Case No. 48-2003-CF-2533-0 will result in the issuance of an order to show cause why he should not be denied further access to this court. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, PALMER, and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Louis Oakley (defendant) appeals the final order entered by the trial court summarily denying his third motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The denial was based on the conclusion that the defendant’s motion was untimely, successive, and meritless. We affirm. The defendant is warned that the filing of any additional successive and frivolous pro se petitions or appeals attacking his convictions and sentences entered in Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Case No. 48-2003-CF-2533-0 will result in the issuance of an order to show cause why he should not be denied further access to this court. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, PALMER, and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 So. 3d 76, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 15189, 2009 WL 3230474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oakley-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack