Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 09-27-2019

Case Style:


Case Number: 19-1192


Court: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Plaintiff's Attorney: Ashley Moody, Attorney General

Defendant's Attorney:

Call 888-354-4529 if you need a Criminal Defense Attorney in Florida.


Call Kent Morlan at 888-354-4529 if you need a lawyer ⚖

On May 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 Court1 to correct what he considers to be an illegal
1 Luma v. State, 225 So. 3d 821 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (table); Luma v. State, 166 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (table); Luma v. State, 160 So. 3d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (table); Luma v. State, 138 So. 3d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (table); Luma v. State, 118 So. 3d 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (table); Luma v. State, 93 So. 3d 1038 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (table); Bastien v. State, 85 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012 (table); Bastien v. State, 77 So. 3d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (table); Luma v, State, 72 So. 3d 762 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (table); Luma v. State, 41 So. 3d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010 (table); Luma v. State, 36 So. 3d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010 (table); Luma v. State, 13 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (table); Luma v. State, 942 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (table); Luma v. State, 919 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (table); Luma v. State, 903 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Luma v. State, 895 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Luma v. State, 876 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (table); Luma v. State, 860 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (table); Luma v. State, 826 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (table). This Court’s records indicate an additional petition in case number 3D16-255, whose outcome is not reported. Further, in December of 2014, the circuit court issued a rule to show cause why Luma should not be prohibited from filing additional pro se pleadings, but the circuit
The 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 mandatory.
We have 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
alternate sentence.

Outcome: Luma is 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.

If Luma 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 licensed attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar.

Affirmed; order to show cause issued.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case