Polk v. State, 820 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Polk v. State, 820 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Hoggs v. State (fladistctapp, 2004-07-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Hoggs v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Polk v. State, 820 So.2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Freeman v. State, 773 So.2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
cited Cited "see" Noojin v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Polk v. State, 820 So.2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
cited Cited "see" Camaroto v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Polk v. State, 820 So.2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Freeman v. State, 773 So.2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), rev. denied, 805 So.2d 806 (Fla.2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ronald POLK, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
5D02-1218.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Jul 12, 2002.
820 So. 2d 456
Sharp.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Ronald Polk, Wewahitchka, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mary G. Jolley, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

SHARP, W., J.

Polk appeals from the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He seeks in this motion to reassert ineffective assistance of counsel claims. He previously filed such a motion, which the trial court denied without a hearing. This court affirmed that order, without opinion. See Polk v. State, 765 So.2d 720 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

The claims contained in this motion are the same as those raised in his prior motion: counsel failed to move to suppress physical evidence and failed to subpoena witnesses Rhonda Brown and Rodney Gardner. Polk alleges that the first motion was not decided on the merits, but rather was denied because of procedural defects, because she failed to allege the witnesses not called were available and failed to state how their testimony would have changed the outcome of the trial.

The trial court noted that the ineffective assistance claims had been raised in the prior proceeding, and that they were rejected as both legally insufficient and without merit, as shown by the attachments. Thus, the prohibition against successive motions applies in this case. See Freeman v. State, 773 So.2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), rev. denied, 805 So.2d 806 (Fla. 2001).

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.