State v. Piehl

In this case it appears successive motions under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix were made in the Circuit Court by the Respondent, seeking to vacate his sentence. Both motions were denied, the second being denied because the Circuit Court found it was predicated upon the same grounds presented and denied in the first motion.

It is true the denial of a similar second motion in a Rule 1 proceeding on the ground of res adjudicata is a proper disposition of an application because the language in the Rule provides “ * * * [t]he sentencing court shall not be required to entertain…