Recio v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Recio v. State

96 So. 3d 1098, 2012 WL 3826204, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14849

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Recio v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18674 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 5, 2012·No. No. 4D11-3980·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Appellant is cautioned against future motions, petitions or appeals raising the same challenges to his sentence in this case. Such attempts will result in referral to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures which may include forfeiture of gain time, see § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat., and issuance of an order to show cause why further sanctions barring pro se filings should not be imposed as well under State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48-49 (Fla.1999).

MAY, C.J., GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Appellant is cautioned against future motions, petitions or appeals raising the same challenges to his sentence in this case. Such attempts will result in referral to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures which may include forfeiture of gain time, see § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat., and issuance of an order to show cause why further sanctions barring pro se filings should not be imposed as well under State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47, 48-49 (Fla.1999).

MAY, C.J., GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Recio v. State, 96 So. 3d 1098, 2012 WL 3826204, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14849 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

96 So. 3d 1098 (Recio v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related