WILLIAM D. WILSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 3.800 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
[*972] PER CURIAM.
Appellant, William D. Wilson, seeks review of the summary denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse because the trial court failed to address and refute Wilson’s claim that his plea was involuntary because the plea agreement was not enforced, and as a consequence, he did not receive the agreed upon jail credit. The trial court dismissed the motion as successive and attached a prior order denying a motion for jail credit filed pursuant to rule 3.800 and the plea colloquy. Wilson’s claim that his plea was involuntary is not equivalent to his claim that he deserved additional jail credit. Therefore, his postconviction motion is not successive as the voluntariness of his plea was not determined in the prior order. The court must review Wilson’s claim on its merits.
Accordingly, we reverse. On remand, should the trial court again deny the motion, it must attach portions of the record which refute Wilson’s claim. See Beeton v. State, 668 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
Reversed and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and QUINCE and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)…dol v. State, 823 So. 2d 300, 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); see also Jenkins v. State, 749 So. 2d 527, 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (noting that a defendant may not raise the same illegal sentencing issue in successive post-conviction motions); Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971, 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (noting that rule 3.800 “contains no proscription against the filing of successive motions” but that “a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided against him”). In barri…
-
Harris v. State, 777 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…7). The doctrine of law of the case prohibits successive review of a specific claim of error that has been raised by the defendant and decided by the appellate court. See Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); see also Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Although the Fifth District has recently suggested that the law of the case doctrine would not bar reconsideration of some claims under rule 3.800(a), the court limited its opinion to those “exceptional circumstances where relian…
-
Shaw v. State, 780 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…rule 3.800(a) does not prohibit successive motions, as does rule 3.850, a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue that has already been decided. See Fuston v. State, 764 So. 2d 779, 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971, 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Burns v. State, 637 So. 2d 937, 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). However, the trial court failed to attach Shaw’s September 16, 1998, motion or the trial court’s order on that motion. When ruling on a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Becton v. State, 668 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)