Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2013

Smith v. State

Smith v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided August 21, 2013 · Ciklin, Forst, Gross
120 So. 3d 155; 2013 WL 4436543; 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13046 (Southern Reporter, Third Series)

Smith v. State

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Edward F. Smith appeals the denial of his untimely and successive Rule 3.850 motion again attempting to collaterally challenge his 1996 conviction and sentence. The November 2012 motion raises a frivolous claim of newly discovered evidence. He claims that the prosecutor was an “imposter” because he was allegedly not designated or appointed to sign the indictment. It is well-established that this type of claim is frivolous. Roker v. State, 25 *156So.3d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). An allegation that a charging document was not properly signed or verified provides no basis for postconviction relief. See Logan v. State, 1 So.3d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.140(g); see also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.140(o).

The Clerk of this Court is directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures. § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). Appellant is cautioned that any further frivolous filing will result in the sanction of this court no longer accepting his pro se filings. State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999).

Affirmed. Appellant referred to prison officials.

GROSS, CIKLIN and FORST, JJ„ concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.