Washington v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Washington v. State

238 So. 3d 282

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Washington v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 187 So. 3d 244 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 7, 2018·No. Nos. 4D17–3513; 4D17–3514·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Robert Washington appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion, as well as the trial court's order prohibiting him from filing future pro se pleadings unless signed by a member of the Florida Bar. We sua sponte consolidate the cases for review and affirm both orders. The trial court properly treated Washington's habeas petition as a successive and untimely rule 3.850 motion. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it issued the sanction order barring further pro se filings from Washington. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(n).

Affirmed .

Gerber, C.J., May and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Robert Washington appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion, as well as the trial court's order prohibiting him from filing future pro se pleadings unless signed by a member of the Florida Bar. We sua sponte consolidate the cases for review and affirm both orders. The trial court properly treated Washington's habeas petition as a successive and untimely rule 3.850 motion. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it issued the sanction order barring further pro se filings from Washington. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(n).

Affirmed .

Gerber, C.J., May and Levine, JJ., concur.

Washington v. State, 238 So. 3d 282 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

238 So. 3d 282 (Washington v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.