Whittey v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JAMES WHITTEY, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2D13-1051 Opinion filed October 9, 2013. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Thane B. Covert, Judge. James Whittey, pro se. VILLANTI, Judge. James Whittey appeals the summary denial of his latest motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In this motion, he repeated the argument raised in his prior motions that his sentence is illegal because the crime for which he was convicted is not a qualifying offense for prison releasee reoffender sentencing. The postconviction court has addressed these allegations on their merits on more than one occasion, and this court has repeatedly affirmed the denial of Whittey's motions. See Whittey v. State, No. 2D12-1620, 2012 WL 5974191 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 30, 2012) (table); Whittey v. State, 61 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (table); Whittey v. State, 25 So. 3d 1241 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (table). Further, this latest motion was filed before the mandate issued in Whittey's most recent appeal. Such successive and consecutive filings not only burden the court system but potentially harm other defendants as well. See Henderson v. State, 903 So. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (noting that frivolous criminal appeals clog the courts and hurt meritorious criminal appeals). In denying Whittey's latest motion, the postconviction court warned that further successive filings could result in sanctions. We again reiterate this warning and stress that future frivolous appeals will be viewed unfavorably by this court and may result in Whittey's referral to the Department of Corrections for discipline. See § 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2013). Affirmed. NORTHCUTT and SLEET, JJ., Concur. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.