Lockett v. State, 657 So. 2d 38

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.

Case Details

Case Name: Lockett v. State

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Jun 23, 1995

Citations: 657 So. 2d 38; 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6789; 1995 WL 370948; No. 95-1187

Docket Number: No. 95-1187

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.