Lockett v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal
Lockett v. State, 657 So. 2d 38 (1995)
1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6789; 1995 WL 370948
Cobb, Griffin, Sharp

Lockett v. State

Concurring Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge,

concurring specially.

In order to forestall Lockett from filing a fifth or sixth rule 3.850 motion, we should affirm the trial court’s denial of this, his fourth motion, because it is successive and improper. Stewart v. State, 632 So.2d 59 (Fla. 1993); Zeigler v. State, 632 So.2d 48 (Fla. 1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 104, 130 L.Ed.2d 52 (1994); Foster v. State, 614 So.2d 455 (Fla. 1992), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 398, 126 L.Ed.2d 346 (1993); Davis v. State, 589 So.2d 896 (Fla. 1991); Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Johnson v. State, 652 So.2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Enough is enough.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. W. SHARP, J., concurs specially with opinion.

Reference

Full Case Name
Kelvin LOCKETT v. STATE of Florida
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published