Porter v. State

POLEN, Judge.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s order denying appellant’s rule 3.850 motion. Although the trial court’s order does not expressly so state, it appears the order is in agreement with the appellee’s response that appellant’s 3.850 motion was an impermissible successive motion. Stewart v. State, 495 So.2d 164 (Fla.1986); and Christopher v. State, 489 So.2d 22 (Fla.1986). We find the state is incorrect in this assertion, and reverse.

Appellant originally pled guilty to trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine in two separate cases, and was sentenced to a fifteen-year…