Opinion
Case No. 5D02-3925.
Opinion filed May 2, 2003.
3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Reginald Whitehead, Judge.
Patrick Joseph McArthur, Madison, pro se.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
We reverse the denial of the defendant's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion seeking jail time credit. The motion was denied as successive because the defendant filed a prior unsuccessful rule 3.800(a) motion raising the same issue. Because the defendant did not appeal the order denying his initial rule 3.800(a) motion, the trial court erred in denying the second motion as successive. See McBride v. State, 810 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA), review granted, 825 So.2d 935 (Fla. 2002).
In McBride, this court held that the law of the case doctrine did not prohibit successive motions pursuant to rule 3.800(a) if the issue raised had not previously been ruled upon by an appellate court. The defendant in that case filed a rule 3.800(a) motion, which was denied. He attempted to appeal that order but this court dismissed the appeal as being untimely filed. The defendant tried again with a second motion, which was denied as successive. That order was timely appealed and this court reversed, concluding that the motion was not barred under the law of the case doctrine. The facts in McBride clearly reveal that the defendant made a good faith effort to have the order denying his first motion appealed but he was unsuccessful in timely filing the notice of appeal.
However, the decision in McBride should not be read to allow a criminal defendant to file successive motions to abuse the process and the judicial system. As we explained in Washington v. State, 838 So.2d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), it is a waste of judicial resources to have to consider such repetitive motions. Hence, if the trial court finds that rule 3.800 motions are being filed for that purpose, it may stop the abuse under the "enough is enough" rule. See Davis v. State, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D871 (Fla. 5th DCA Apr. 4, 2003) (citing Rahymes v. State, 730 So.2d 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Werts v. State, 722 So.2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)).
We find nothing in the record to indicate that McArthur has abused the judicial system by filing the motion subject to our review in the instant proceedings. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's order denying McArthur's motion as successive and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.