Lockett v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1ConcurrenceW. Sharp, Judge
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…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Isley v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995
- Foster v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1992
- Eartha D. v. Orange County Social Services AgencySupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Zeigler v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1993
- Johnson v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.