Vasquez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vasquez v. State

133 So. 3d 1116, 2014 WL 464157, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1456

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 5, 2014

DocketNo. 4D13-3126

StatusPublished

This text of 133 So. 3d 1116 (Vasquez 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

Vasquez v. State, 133 So. 3d 1116, 2014 WL 464157, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1456 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s “Motion for Sentencing Relief Convert to Term Probation.” The motion does not establish an “illegal” sentence that can be corrected at any time. See Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173, 1178 (Fla.2001). Instead, as the trial court recognized, the motion presented untimely and meritless claims directed toward trial counsel and the conviction in general. The trial court properly denied the motion and cautioned Appellant that subsequent mer-itless claims could result in sanctions.

We warn Appellant as well. Appellant has previously filed at least five proceedings collaterally challenging her 2006 conviction and sentence.¹ Because these filings raised or attempted to re-litigate meritless claims, we caution her that the filing of any additional successive and frivolous pro se motions, petitions, or appeals attacking her conviction and sentence in this case may result in the imposition of sanctions, such as a bar on further pro se filing in this court and/or referral to prison officials for disciplinary procedures. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999). See also § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2012); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(n).

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., MAY and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s “Motion for Sentencing Relief Convert to Term Probation.” The motion does not establish an “illegal” sentence that can be corrected at any time. See Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173, 1178 (Fla.2001). Instead, as the trial court recognized, the motion presented untimely and meritless claims directed toward trial counsel and the conviction in general. The trial court properly denied the motion and cautioned Appellant that subsequent mer-itless claims could result in sanctions.

We warn Appellant as well. Appellant has previously filed at least five proceedings collaterally challenging her 2006 conviction and sentence.¹ Because these filings raised or attempted to re-litigate meritless claims, we caution her that the filing of any additional successive and frivolous pro se motions, petitions, or appeals attacking her conviction and sentence in this case may result in the imposition of sanctions, such as a bar on further pro se filing in this court and/or referral to prison officials for disciplinary procedures. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999). See also § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2012); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(n).

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., MAY and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 So. 3d 1116, 2014 WL 464157, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vasquez-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack