From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tillery v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Feb 20, 1998
705 So. 2d 722 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Opinion

Case No. 98-281

Opinion filed February 20, 1998 JANUARY TERM 1998

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Warren Burk, Judge.

Gary Smith, Melbourne, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.


The issues Tillery raises were argued by him in his appeal from the denial of a previous 3.850 motion and were rejected by this court in a per curiam affirmance without opinion. See Tillery v. State, 702 So.2d 509 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). His successive post-conviction motion was thus improper. Foster v. State, 614 So.2d 455 (Fla. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 951 (1993); Penn v. State, 688 So.2d 450 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Accordingly, we affirm the denial thereof, but write to draw Tillery's attention to O'Brien v. State, 689 So.2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996 requires that procedural bars to collateral review be strictly enforced; prisoners proceeding frivolously are subject to having all or part of gain time forfeited), rev. denied, 697 So.2d 511 (Fla. 1997).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Tillery v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Feb 20, 1998
705 So. 2d 722 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Case details for

Tillery v. State

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT TILLERY, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Feb 20, 1998

Citations

705 So. 2d 722 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Citing Cases

Witherspoon v. State

We caution Witherspoon that bringing any more successive collateral attacks raising these same issues may…

Owens v. State

We admonish Owens that additional collateral attacks on his judgment and sentence, which are like this one,…