JOHNNY WAYNE NICEWONDER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
A trial court properly denied a Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence, but the correct legal basis was that the appellant failed to allege facts showing the sentence was illegal under applicable precedent, not that prior appellate affirmance precluded the motion.
A trial court may deny a Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence when the movant fails to allege facts sufficient to show the sentence was illegal under controlling case law or that a scoresheet error appears on the face of the record.
[1] Prior appellate affirmance of a sentence precludes a subsequent Rule 3.800(a) motion only under the law of the case doctrine if the appellate record reflects that the cou…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Nicewonder sought to correct his sentence via a Rule 3.800(a) motion after his sentence had been affirmed on appeal.…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sentencing Scoresheet Error cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, Judge.
The appellant challenges an order by which his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence was denied for the expressed reason that the appellant’s .sentence had been affirmed on appeal to this court. Although we affirm the order because the trial court properly denied relief on the appellant’s motion, the reason for the denial should have been that the appellant failed to allege in his motion facts sufficient to assert that the sentence was “illegal” under decisions such as King v. State, 681 So. 2d 1136 (Fla.1996), Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995), and State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995), or that the sentence had been imposed in reliance upon a scoresheet which contained an error apparent from the face of the record. See Baldwin v. State, 679 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The affirmance of a sentence in an appeal precludes a subsequent 3.800(a) claim under the law of the case doctrine only if the record reflects that the appellate court actually decided precisely the same claim in the appeal. See Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); see also Bedford v. State, 633 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1994). Because the record in this case does not indicate that this court decided in the appeal the same claim the appellant subsequently presented in his 3.800(a) motion, our affir-mance of the sentence did not preclude the 3.800(a) motion under the law of the case doctrine.
The order is affirmed.
MINER and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mills v. State, 724 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…llegal sentence, the defendant is entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing at which the state is required to corroborate the defendant’s challenged prior record even though the priors had not been previously challenged. See also Nicewonder v. State, 698 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). We note that the challenges raised here were not previously addressed, nor, in the case of the added misdemeanors, could they have been considered. We also note that the remand was not simply for the performance of a ministerial…
-
Pippin v. State, 765 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…on on the basis that Pippin had filed previous postconviction motions which raised the same sentencing issues and had been denied on the merits, thereby precluding the rule 3.800(a) motion under the law of the case doctrine. See Nicewonder v. State, 698 So. 2d 376, 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The trial court attached copies of its denials of Pippin’s previous motions. The trial court’s previous denials do not sufficiently set out the sentencing issues Pippin previously challenged, nor does the trial court attac…
-
Dywayne Tony Wilson v. State, 857 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…merits. Thus, the claim is neither successive nor barred by the law of the case doctrine. See State v. McBride, [*966] 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla.2003); Zeigler v. State, 632 So. 2d 48, 51 (Fla.1993); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b); see also Nicewonder v. State, 698 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Appellant has raised a facially sufficient claim that appears to have merit. Unless another qualifying predicate offense exists, appellant’s sentence must be vacated. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court shall either attach…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- King v. State, 681 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1996)
- Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Bedford v. State, 633 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1994)
- Interamerican CAR Rental, Inc. v. The Est. OF Jamaul McCLOUD, 679 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Miller Baldwin, Jr. v. State, 679 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)