Case Name: Nathaniel POOLE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-08-17
Citations: 791 So. 2d 1232
Docket Number: No. 5D00-3604
Parties: Nathaniel POOLE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: THOMPSON, C.J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 791
Pages: 1232–1234

Head Matter:
Nathaniel POOLE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 5D00-3604.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Aug. 17, 2001.
Nathaniel Poole, Jr., Jasper, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PLEUS, J.
Appellant, Nathaniel Poole, Jr., timely appeals the trial court's order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis which the trial court correctly treated as a Rule 3.850 motion. See Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999). Poole argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion because newly discovered evidence would exonerate him. Specifically, he contends that pubic hair and blood samples used at trial should be re-examined utilizing modern DNA testing procedures. Because his petition was untimely and successive, we affirm.
On July 26, 1981, Poole was convicted of kidnaping, sexual battery, robbery, and aggravated assault. He was sentenced to 40 years on the kidnaping and sexual battery counts, 15 years on the robbery count, and 5 years on the aggravated assault count, all running concurrently. Poole directly appealed from that conviction and this court affirmed his conviction. Poole v. State, 413 So.2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Subsequently, he filed a Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, seeking the same relief as in the instant motion. Poole has already been afforded complete judicial review of his contention that DNA typing would have exonerated him. Poole v. State, 644 So.2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
Coram nobis claims cannot bring life back into post-conviction claims that have previously been barred. Vonia v. State, 680 So.2d 438, 439 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1996). Poole's coram nobis claims are untimely and successive, and therefore constitute an abuse of process. Accordingly, we prohibit Poole from filing any further pro se pleadings with this court concerning his 1981 conviction and sentence. See Rahymes v. State, 730 So.2d 420, 422 (Fla. 5th DCA), cause dismissed, 733 So.2d 516 (Fla.1999); Davis v. State, 705 So.2d 133, 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Isley v. State, 652 So.2d 409, 410-411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, C.J., concurs.
SHARP, W., J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with opinion.