Tillery v. State

GOSHORN, Judge.

The issues Tillery raises were argued by him in his appeal from the denial of a previ*723ous 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, 114 S.Ct. 398, 126 L.Ed.2d 346 (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)…