Summary
holding that rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred as successive where the issue raised in the pending rule 3.850 motion was one that could or should have been raised in the earlier rule 3.850 motion
Summary of this case from Clayton v. StateOpinion
No. 5D05-3571.
January 27, 2006.
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, David B. Eddy, Judge.
Mitchell D. Scrambling, Sanderson, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
Mitchell David Scrambling (defendant) appeals the trial court's order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion. Concluding that the defendant's motion is procedurally barred as being an improper successive motion in violation of rule 3.850(f), we affirm.
See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850.
The defendant has filed two previous rule 3.850 motions. Both were summarily denied by the trial court and said rulings were affirmed by this court. See Scrambling v. State, 897 So.2d 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Scrambling v. State, 889 So.2d 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The claim raised in the defendant's current rule 3.850 motion is one that could have or should have been raised in his first rule 3.850 motion.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W. and TORPY, JJ., concur.