White v. State

Full title: James White, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee.

Court: Florida Court of Appeals, First District

Date published: Feb 16, 2022

No. 1D21-2157 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2022)

Opinion

1D21-2157

02-16-2022

James White, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee.

James White, pro se, Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. Kevin J. Carroll, Judge.

James White, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam

James White appeals an order denying as untimely his motion for postconviction relief. Following a 2004 trial, a jury found White guilty of two counts of sexual battery and one count of false imprisonment. Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b), White had two years after his judgment and sentence became final to seek postconviction relief. White's judgment and sentence became final on September 19, 2005, when this Court granted his motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal of his judgment and sentence.

In October 2005, White did file a timely motion under rule 3.850, raising forty-six grounds for postconviction relief. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied that motion. And this Court affirmed White's appeal of the trial court's ruling. See White v. State, 7 So.3d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (unpublished table decision).

Then, sixteen years after his judgment and sentence became final, White moved for postconviction relief for a second time. But White's motion was time-barred under rule 3.850(b), and he alleged no exception under the rule. For this reason, the trial court found that the motion was procedurally barred and dismissed White's second postconviction motion. We find no error in the trial court's ruling. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b).

We also find that this appeal was frivolous. The Court warns White that any future filings that this Court determines to be frivolous may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a prohibition against any further pro se filings in this Court and a referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2021).

Affirmed.

Rowe, CJ, and Lewis and MK Thomas, JJ., concur.