final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2)
from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County Lower Tribunal
No. 97-29656, Victoria Del Pino, Judge.
Luma, in proper person.
Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.
SCALES, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.
Herby Luma (a/k/a Ronet Bastien, a/k/a Jay Eric Hudges)
appeals an order of the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court,
dated May 9, 2019, titled, "Order Denying
Defendant's Successive Motion to Correct Illegal
Sentence." For the reasons stated herein, we affirm this
order and issue an order to show cause.
6, 1998, in lower tribunal case number 97-29656, a jury found
Luma guilty of seven counts of burglary, grand theft,
criminal mischief and possession of burglary tools. The trial
court sentenced Luma on the two burglary counts to forty
years in prison, with a thirty-year minimum mandatory
sentence, determining that Luma was a violent career criminal
pursuant to section 775.084(1)(c) and (4)(c) of the Florida
Statutes (1997). This Court affirmed the sentence in Luma
v. State, 739 So.2d 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Since his
conviction, Luma has filed numerous appeals and petitions to
this Court to correct what he considers
to be an illegal sentence.
record reflects that, in 2012, the circuit court granted Luma
a new sentencing hearing. The trial court again determined
that Luma was a violent career criminal, as defined in
section 775.084 of the Florida Statutes, and again sentenced
Luma to a forty-year term, with a thirty-year minimum
considered Luma's appeal in the instant case and have
reviewed a record that is distinctive for its repetition. We
agree with both findings of the trial court: (1) at this
stage, Luma may not use a rule 3.800 motion to challenge
either his 1998 sentence or his 2012 re-sentencing, as they
were authorized by law, see Paris v. State, 156
So.3d 578, 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); and (2) it was not
necessary for the State to re-introduce evidence at the 2012
hearing in view of the trial court's limited purpose of
determining whether it would exercise discretion to impose an
TO SHOW CAUSE
hereby directed to show cause, within forty-five days of the
date of this opinion, as to why he should not be prohibited
from filing further pro se appeals, petitions,
motions or other pleadings related to his convictions in
lower tribunal case number F97-29656.
does not demonstrate good cause, we will direct the Clerk of
this Court not to accept any such filings unless they have
been reviewed by, and bear the signature of, a ...