Full Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D20-2514 _____________________________ ANTHONY MIMS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. Stephen S. Everett, Judge. February 18, 2021 PER CURIAM. Appellant challenges the summary denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). For the reasons stated below, we affirm. In his motion, Appellant argues that the trial court was without authority to sentence him to 20 years in prison because the law did not allow him to be convicted of armed robbery with a firearm where the jury did not find that he actually possessed a firearm and the evidence did not demonstrate that he actually possessed a firearm. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion as meritless and procedurally barred. Appellant’s claim is barred by collateral estoppel. “While rule 3.800(a) does not prohibit successive motions, a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue that has already been decided on the merits.” Holton v. State, 51 So. 3d 1164, 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citing State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 291 (Fla. 2003)). Appellant previously raised this claim and substantially similar claims in prior motions, which were denied on the merits. Thus, the claim is barred by collateral estoppel. Appellant’s sentence is also legal. “Constructive or vicarious possession of a firearm is sufficient to sustain a conviction for robbery with a firearm.” Lewis v. State, 625 So. 2d 102, 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Thus, Appellant’s conviction for robbery with a firearm as a principal is legal. Because robbery with a firearm is a first-degree felony punishable by up to life in prison, Appellant’s sentence of 20 years in prison falls within the statutory maximum and is legal. See § 812.13(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005). Appellant is warned that any future filings this Court determines to be frivolous may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a prohibition against any further pro se filings in this Court and a referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2020) (providing that “[a] prisoner who is found by a court to have brought a frivolous or malicious suit, action, claim, proceeding, or appeal . . . or to have brought a frivolous or malicious collateral criminal proceeding . . . is subject to disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the Department of Corrections.”). AFFIRMED. ROWE, M.K. THOMAS, and NORDBY, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ 2 Anthony Mims, pro se, Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 3