ROKER v. State
This text of 25 So. 3d 647 (ROKER 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.
Opinion
The trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s successive, untimely, and frivolous rule 3.850 motion is affirmed. Appellant claimed that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction, and that his conviction was void, because the oath of office and appointment of the assistant state attorney who filed the information was not recorded in the circuit court’s records. The allegation that the information was not properly signed or verified is frivolous and not a ground for postconviction relief. See Logan v. State, 1 So.3d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). An information may not be attacked on the ground it was not properly signed or verified once a defendant pleads to the merits. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.140(g); see also Fla. R.Crim. P. -3.140(o).
Appellant is cautioned that continued abuse of the postconviction process by filing frivolous or repetitive motions and/or appeals will result in sanctions. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999); Thurston v. State, 920 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
25 So. 3d 647, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19, 2010 WL 22696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roker-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.