Tillery v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tillery v. State

705 So. 2d 722, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1517, 1998 WL 66621

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 20, 1998

DocketNo. 98-281

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 705 So. 2d 722 (Tillery 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

Tillery v. State, 705 So. 2d 722, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1517, 1998 WL 66621 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

GOSHORN, Judge.

The issues Tillery raises were argued by him in his appeal from the denial of a previ[723]*723ous 3.850 motion and were rejected by this court in a per curiam affirmance without opinion. See Tillery v. State, 702 So.2d 509 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). His successive post-conviction motion was thus improper. Foster v. State, 614 So.2d 455 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 951, 114 S.Ct. 398, 126 L.Ed.2d 346 (1993); Penn v. State, 688 So.2d 450 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Accordingly, we affirm the denial thereof, but write to draw Tillery’s attention to O’Brien v. State, 689 So.2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA) (Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996 requires that procedural bars to collateral review be strictly enforced; prisoners proceeding frivolously are subject to having all or part of gain time forfeited), rev. denied, 697 So.2d 511 (Fla.1997).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.

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

GOSHORN, Judge.

The issues Tillery raises were argued by him in his appeal from the denial of a previ[723]*723ous 3.850 motion and were rejected by this court in a per curiam affirmance without opinion. See Tillery v. State, 702 So.2d 509 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). His successive post-conviction motion was thus improper. Foster v. State, 614 So.2d 455 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 951, 114 S.Ct. 398, 126 L.Ed.2d 346 (1993); Penn v. State, 688 So.2d 450 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Accordingly, we affirm the denial thereof, but write to draw Tillery’s attention to O’Brien v. State, 689 So.2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA) (Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996 requires that procedural bars to collateral review be strictly enforced; prisoners proceeding frivolously are subject to having all or part of gain time forfeited), rev. denied, 697 So.2d 511 (Fla.1997).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

705 So. 2d 722, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1517, 1998 WL 66621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tillery-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack