Lockett v. State, 657 So. 2d 38

Lockett v. State

657 So. 2d 38 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1995

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. W. SHARP, J., concurs specially with opinion.

Concurrence Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge,

concurring specially.

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 enough.