Beauford v. State, 689 So. 2d 320

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court‘s summary denial of Beauford‘s second Rule 3.850 motion¹. Beauford is barred from raising issues which could or should have been raised in his first Rule 3.850 motion. This one attempts to do that and thus it is successive and improper. See Henry v. State, 679 So.2d 885 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Scott v. State, 656 So.2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH, W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Notes

1

Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850.

Case Details

Case Name: Beauford v. State

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Jan 24, 1997

Citations: 689 So. 2d 320; 1997 WL 24593; 96-3066

Docket Number: 96-3066

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.