Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed December 29, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-0860
Lower Tribunal No. F00-11088C
________________
James Roberts,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from
the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Tanya Brinkley, Judge.
MHK Legal, PLLC, and Mark H. Klein (Coral Springs), for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, SCALES, and LINDSEY, JJ.
LINDSEY, J.
James Tyrone Roberts appeals from a summary denial of his motion
to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court denied his motion because it
“rais[ed] the same exact claims upon the same exact grounds . . . remains
successive, and constitutes similar claims previously raised in more than one
motion.” Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a)(2):
A court may dismiss a second or successive motion
if the court finds that the motion fails to allege new or
different grounds for relief and the prior determination
was on the merits. When a motion is dismissed under
this subdivision, a copy of that portion of the files and
records necessary to support the court’s ruling must
accompany the order dismissing the motion.
We agree with the trial court that that Appellant’s motion sought review
of an issue already decided on the merits. And because the trial court
provided the files and record to support its ruling, we affirm. See Roberts v.
State,
107 So. 3d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Roberts v. State,
60 So. 3d 402
(Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Roberts v. State,
990 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008);
Roberts v. State,
963 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Roberts v. State,
903
So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Roberts v. State.,
990 So. 2d 573, 573 (Fla.
3d DCA 2008) (Cope, J., concurring) (“In 2006, the defendant filed an
Amendment to Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence which was treated as a
second rule 3.800(a) motion. It challenged the imposition of his twenty-five
year mandatory minimum sentence under the ten-twenty-life law. The denial
2
of that motion was affirmed on the merits by this court. Roberts v. State,
963
So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).”). Additionally, we find that Appellant’s
underlying claim is legally insufficient.
Affirmed.
3
