Opinion
No. 1D21-3003
03-09-2022
Enrico Spencer ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Enrico Spencer Roberts, pro se, Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Enrico Spencer Roberts, pro se, Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Per Curiam.
Enrico Spencer Roberts appeals an order denying his postconviction motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He argues that his two convictions for selling cocaine within one thousand feet of a school violate double jeopardy. Roberts’ argument fails for two reasons.
First, his postconviction motion was untimely. Roberts’ convictions and sentences became final in 2013 when this Court issued the mandate in his direct appeal. See Roberts v. State , 119 So. 3d 446 (Fla. 1st. DCA 2013). And Roberts alleged no exception to the two-year time limitation for filing his postconviction motion under rule 3.850(b). See Cave v. State , 289 So. 3d 980, 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) ("[T]he two-year period begins to run when appellate proceedings have concluded and the court issues a mandate, or, if no appellate proceedings are initiated, thirty days after the judgment and sentence become final."). For this reason, Roberts’ motion was procedurally barred.
Second, even if his motion had been timely filed, Roberts’ double jeopardy argument lacks merit. On two separate occasions, Roberts sold cocaine to a confidential informant at a residence located within one thousand feet of an elementary school. There was no double jeopardy violation for Roberts’ dual convictions because Roberts committed two distinct criminal acts during separate criminal episodes. See Hayes v. State , 803 So. 2d 695, 700 (Fla. 2001) ("[T]he prohibition against double jeopardy does not prohibit multiple convictions and punishments where a defendant commits two or more distinct criminal acts.").
We also write to warn Roberts against filing future frivolous appeals or petitions in this Court. Since his convictions became final, including this appeal, Roberts has filed five postconviction appeals in this Court and has obtained no relief. See Roberts v. State , 187 So. 3d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (affirming order denying rule 3.850 motion); Roberts v. State , 200 So. 3d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (affirming order denying 3.800(a) motion); Roberts v. State , 200 So. 3d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (affirming order denying 3.800(a) motion); Roberts v. State , 1D20-728, 2020 WL 6887697 (Fla. 1st DCA Nov. 24, 2020) (affirming order denying 3.800(a) motion). Further frivolous filings in this Court may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a prohibition on further pro se filings in this Court. See State v. Spencer , 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999) ("[A]ny citizen, including a citizen attacking his or her conviction, abuses the right to pro se access by filing repetitious and frivolous pleadings, thereby diminishing the ability of the courts to devote their finite resources to the consideration of legitimate claims.").
AFFIRMED .
Rowe, C.J., and Jay and Long, JJ., concur.