Legal Opinion
Scrambling v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided January 27, 2006No. 5D05-3571PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
919 So.2d 671 (2006)
Mitchell D. SCRAMBLING, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 5D05-3571.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
January 27, 2006.
Mitchell D. Scrambling, Sanderson, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
PALMER, J.
Mitchell David Scrambling (defendant) appeals the trial court's order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion.[1] Concluding that the defendant's motion is procedurally barred as being an improper successive motion in violation of rule 3.850(f), we affirm.
The defendant has filed two previous rule 3.850 motions. Both were summarily denied by the trial…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Roque v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2006
- Scrambling v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
3Cited by4 opinions
- Franklin v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2006
- Clayton v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2010
- Foley v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2008
- Leunne v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2008