Weeks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Weeks v. State

106 So. 3d 954, 2013 WL 127442, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 343

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 10, 2013

DocketNo. 1D12-3629

StatusPublished

This text of 106 So. 3d 954 (Weeks 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

Weeks v. State, 106 So. 3d 954, 2013 WL 127442, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 343 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s successive motion for post-conviction relief. We note that Appellant’s most recent motion addresses the same argument and alleged facts previously pled and which this court rejected in Weeks v. State, 49 So.3d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Furthermore, in our case number 1D11-1052, which addressed another of Appellant’s post-conviction motions in this case, this court issued an order warning Appellant that the filing of any further procedurally-barred challenges to his conviction and sentence may result in imposition of sanctions by this court pursuant to section 944.279, Florida Statutes. Appellant’s motion below in this case was improperly successive and this appeal is likewise improper.

Accordingly, we direct the clerk of this court to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate correctional institution for the imposition of disciplinary proceedings against Appellant, in accordance with section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2004).

We also direct the Clerk of this court not to accept any pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Appellant relating to Santa Rosa County Case number 1983-1-534 unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.

AFFIRMED. Certified Opinion FORWARDED to the Department of Corrections.

WOLF, THOMAS, and MARSTILLER, 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 successive motion for post-conviction relief. We note that Appellant’s most recent motion addresses the same argument and alleged facts previously pled and which this court rejected in Weeks v. State, 49 So.3d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Furthermore, in our case number 1D11-1052, which addressed another of Appellant’s post-conviction motions in this case, this court issued an order warning Appellant that the filing of any further procedurally-barred challenges to his conviction and sentence may result in imposition of sanctions by this court pursuant to section 944.279, Florida Statutes. Appellant’s motion below in this case was improperly successive and this appeal is likewise improper.

Accordingly, we direct the clerk of this court to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate correctional institution for the imposition of disciplinary proceedings against Appellant, in accordance with section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2004).

We also direct the Clerk of this court not to accept any pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Appellant relating to Santa Rosa County Case number 1983-1-534 unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.

AFFIRMED. Certified Opinion FORWARDED to the Department of Corrections.

WOLF, THOMAS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 So. 3d 954, 2013 WL 127442, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weeks-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.