Case Name: Alton LIGHTBOURN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2016-10-05
Citations: 215 So. 3d 74
Docket Number: No. 3D16-1703
Parties: Alton LIGHTBOURN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SUAREZ, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 215
Pages: 74–75

Head Matter:
Alton LIGHTBOURN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D16-1703.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 5, 2016.
Alton Lightbourn, in proper person.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SUAREZ, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ.

Opinion:
SUAREZ, C.J.
Aton Lightbourn appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 motion to correct sentence. We affirm because no appeal was pending at the time the subject motion was filed and because the trial court was correct in finding that the claims made in the motion are successive.
The motion at issue was filed by Lightb-ourn on March 16, 2015. The state re sponded to that motion on March 27, 2015 and supplemented its response on February 5, 2016. The trial court properly denied that motion on June 6, 2016. Lightb-ourn incorrectly argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule because there was an appeal pending at the time of its ruling. That is not so. The most recent appeal in this Court involving Lightbourn was case number 3D13-2618. The mandate in that case issued in December 2014, well before Lightbourn filed his most recent motion. In addition, Lightbourn raised nearly identical claims relating to the upward departure sentence imposed in 2010 in case numbers 3D12-1455 and 3D12-2175. Conflict counsel also raised similar issues in case number 3D13-2618. As a result, the claims are successive.
Because there was no pending appeal at the time Lightbourn filed his motion and because the trial court properly found his claims successive we affirm.
Affirmed.
. Two other appeals filed by Lightbourn, 3D12-2025 and 13-2534 were petitions for belated appeals and did not involve substantive argument.