From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Aug 27, 1999
741 So. 2d 585 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Summary

recognizing prohibition against successive appeals

Summary of this case from Williams v. Sec'y

Opinion

No. 99-1965.

Opinion filed August 27, 1999 Rehearing Denied October 4, 1999.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, A. Thomas Mihok, Judge.

Samuel Smith, Mayo, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.


We affirm this successive appeal from a denial of a motion to correct a sentence. Because appellant has engaged in frivolous and successive appeals we warn him that if he files another appeal regarding the same issue and conviction that he will be subject to a cancellation of good time credits and other sanctions. See Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Wareham v. State, 678 So.2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. den., 686 So.2d 583 (Fla. 1996).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH, HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Smith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Aug 27, 1999
741 So. 2d 585 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

recognizing prohibition against successive appeals

Summary of this case from Williams v. Sec'y

recognizing prohibition against successive appeals

Summary of this case from Williams v. Sec'y

recognizing prohibition against successive appeals

Summary of this case from McClay v. Sec'y

recognizing prohibition against successive appeals

Summary of this case from Rogers v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

recognizing prohibition against successive appeals

Summary of this case from Amador v. Secretary, Fl. D. of Ch. Families Svc.
Case details for

Smith v. State

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Aug 27, 1999

Citations

741 So. 2d 585 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Sec'y

Petitioner is now barred by state procedural rules from returning to state court to exhaust his federal claim…

Williams v. Sec'y

Petitioner is now barred by state procedural rules from returning to state court to exhaust his federal claim…