Colonel v. State

PER CURIAM. We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.850 motion as untimely and successive. However, we reverse that part of the order which imposes sanctions barring-appellant from filing any further pleadings in this case and remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinions in Boston v. State, 722 So.2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) and Spencer v. State, 717 So.2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). MINER, WOLF and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.