Owens v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Owens v. State

707 So. 2d 430, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3415, 1998 WL 150749

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 1998

DocketNo. 98-492

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 707 So. 2d 430 (Owens 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

Owens v. State, 707 So. 2d 430, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3415, 1998 WL 150749 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

Owens appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.

This is Owens’ fourth such motion. It raises the issue of whether Owens’ guilty plea in the criminal proceedings below (related to this collateral attack on his judgment and sentence) was voluntary. He fails to allege or state why this issue could not have been raised in his prior motions and none is apparent on this record. Accordingly, this motion is successive and improper.

We admonish Owens that additional collateral attacks on his judgment and sentence, which are like this one, successive and improper, will expose him to forfeiture of gain time. Tillery v. State, 705 So.2d 722 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). See O’Brien v. State, 689 So.2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 697 So.2d 511 (Fla.1997).

AFFIRMED.

COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

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

W. SHARP, Judge.

Owens appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.

This is Owens’ fourth such motion. It raises the issue of whether Owens’ guilty plea in the criminal proceedings below (related to this collateral attack on his judgment and sentence) was voluntary. He fails to allege or state why this issue could not have been raised in his prior motions and none is apparent on this record. Accordingly, this motion is successive and improper.

We admonish Owens that additional collateral attacks on his judgment and sentence, which are like this one, successive and improper, will expose him to forfeiture of gain time. Tillery v. State, 705 So.2d 722 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). See O’Brien v. State, 689 So.2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 697 So.2d 511 (Fla.1997).

AFFIRMED.

COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

707 So. 2d 430, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3415, 1998 WL 150749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack