THOMAS v. STATE (2021)

Carlton Thomas appeals the dismissal of his latest postconviction motion. This one purports to challenge an illegal sentence, but the basis for that challenge is an attack on what he characterizes as a fundamental defect in the charging instrument. Thomas made a similar attack in an earlier postconviction motion, which the trial court denied. Because the denial of that motion was on appeal, and the instant motion involved an issue relating to that raised in the prior motion, the trial court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court was correct to do so. See Williams v. State, 795 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (vacating denial of rule 3.800(a) motion and remanding for entry of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because there already was a pending appeal of denial of similar motion). We affirm.

The court notes that Thomas has collaterally attacked his judgment and sentence in Leon County Circuit Court Case Number 10-CF-4168 in four previous cases, as follows: Case Nos. 1D16-2065, 1D17-2525, 1D19-0440, and 1D20-0186. Thomas received no relief in any of these cases. In turn, the court warns Thomas that any future filings that this court determines to be frivolous may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a prohibition against any further pro se filings in this court and a referral to the appropriate institution or facility of Florida Department of Corrections for disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2020).

Per Curiam.

Roberts, Rowe, and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.