JOSEPH SUGGS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1996-10-18
No. 96-80
COBB, W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
681 So. 2d 870 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1996) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that a defendant is not entitled to relief on a petition for writ of habeas corpus when the issue raised was previously decided on appeal and when the defendant need not be present for resentencing.


Facts & Procedural History

Suggs petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing the trial court erred in resentencing him in his absence. This issue had been raised in a prior …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We deny Suggs petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his petition, he urges that the trial court erred in resentencing him in his absence. Suggs is entitled to no relief.

In the first place, Suggs raised this identical issue in an appeal from a denial of a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Suggs v. State, 650 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Successive claims are procedurally barred where issues either were or should have been raised in earlier appeals. See Atkins v. Singletary, 622 So. 2d 951 (Fla.1993); Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

Further, a defendant need not be present for resentencing where habitual offender sentences are reversed, pursuant to Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994). See Golz v. State, 674 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Rolle v. State, 668 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Brown v. State, 647 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Brown v. State, 630 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

AFFIRMED.

COBB, W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Windisch v. State, 709 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
    …2d DCA 1996); Golz v. State, 674 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Rolle v. State, 668 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Brown v. State, 630 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). See also Brown v. State, 647 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA [*607] 1994); Suggs v. State, 681 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Applying Hale to Windisch, we conclude that the trial court erred by imposing new sentences. Windisch contends that he was entitled to be represented by counsel at the resentencing hearing. Because correcting Hale sentencing er…
  • Smith v. State, 800 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
    …sentences on counts III and IV with directions that the trial .court amend those sentences so that they run concurrently with Smith’s life sentence in count II. Because this is a purely ministerial act, Smith need not be present. See Suggs v. State, 681 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); see also Windisch v. State, 709 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Brown v. State, 647 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF SENTENCE. THOMPSON, C.J. and PALMER, J„ concur. . At resentencing the S…
  • Sneed v. State, 754 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
    …747 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Summers v. State, 747 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Appellant’s sentence under Counts III and IV is not affected by this ruling. Appellant need not be present for this action by the trial court. Suggs v. State, 681 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). REVERSED and REMANDED. BOOTH, LAWRENCE and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw