193 SO3D 1083 - William D. Calloway v. State

PER CURIAM.

¶1 We affirm the trial court’s order precluding William Calloway from future pro se filings. However, because it appears Calloway may now have a valid claim, namely that the 100 year sentence imposed on him as a juvenile constitutes an unconstitutional de facto life sentence, see Miller v. Alabama, — U.S.-,-, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2469, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) and Falcon v. State, 162 So.3d 954, 964 (Fla.2015), we do so without prejudice to Callo-way’s ability to file with the trial court a motion for the appointment of counsel to represent him on that claim. 1

¶2 AFFIRMED.

TORPY, BERGER and LAMBERT, concur.

¶3 . Calloway argues in his brief that he sought the appointment of counsel to represent him on his most recent postconviction filing, but that the request was denied. We can find nothing in the record to suggest that such a motion was ever filed,