Lockett v. State
Docket: No. 95-1187
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; June 23, 1995; Florida; State Appellate Court
Affirming the trial court's denial of Lockett's fourth motion under rule 3.850 is necessary to prevent him from submitting additional successive motions. The judge cites multiple precedents, including Stewart v. State and Zeigler v. State, to support the position that successive motions are improper. The judge emphasizes that allowing further motions would be excessive and counterproductive, indicating a clear stance against the continuation of what has become a repetitive legal strategy.