LARRY MARLOW, 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.
Appellant's successive motion challenging sentencing guidelines was properly denied because the argument had already been raised and rejected in prior proceedings, and sentencing guideline challenges cannot be brought under Rule 3.800(a).
A sentencing guideline challenge cannot be raised in a Rule 3.800(a) motion, and successive challenges to the same sentencing issue are barred.
[1] A sentencing guideline challenge cannot be raised in a Rule 3.800(a) motion, even if the same argument was previously raised under Rule 3.850.
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 intelligenceMarlow was convicted of attempted sexual battery and sentenced to three concurrent 30-year terms. He appealed his convictions in 1994 (affirmed), then…
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 Attempted Sexual Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Marlow appeals from a summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), attempting once more to collaterally attack his sentences of three concurrent 30 year terms of incarceration for attempted sexual battery. He appealed his initial convictions and sentences in 1994, and this court affirmed per curiam without opinion. Marlow v. State, 632 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Then, Marlow filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, arguing his sentences exceeded the guidelines. The trial court denied the motion summarily and this court affirmed without opinion. Marlow v. State, 662 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
In his present rule 3.800(a) motion, Marlow again argues the trial court should have sentenced him pursuant to the guidelines. This argument is successive. Even though the rules proceeded under have different numbers, and conceivably either could be used to challenge some sentences, they do not provide a second bite at the apple. In any event, the argument that the trial court exceeded the guidelines cannot be raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion. State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995); Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
AFFIRMED.
GOSHORN and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…the parties’ pleadings. Diaz-Verson v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., 54 So.Bd 1007, 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Capeo Props., LLC v. Monterey Gardens of Pinecrest Condo., 982 So. 2d 1211, 1213-14 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Richard Mulholland & Assocs. v. Polverari, 698 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Krypton Broad, of Jacksonville, Inc. v. MGM-Pathe Commc’ns Co., 629 So. 2d 852, 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), disapproved on other grounds by Allstate, 655 So. 2d at 95. In the instant case, Mirmelli’s complaint and Hannon’s aff…
-
Diaz-Verson v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., 54 So. 3d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…Jacksonville, Inc. v. MGM-Pathe Commc’ns Co., 629 So. 2d 852, 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), disapproved on other grounds by Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 95 (Fla.1995) (emphasis added); see also Richard Mulholland & Assocs. v. Polverari, 698 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“A protective order should be granted when the pleadings indicate that the documents requested are not related to any pending claim or defense ....”) (emphasis added). Here, the pleadings, i.e., the second amended complaint…
-
Thomas J. Pusateri, M.D. v. Fernandez, 707 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…that the information requested is neither relevant to any pending claim or defense nor will it lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995); Richard Mulholland & Assocs. v. Polverari, 698 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Petitioners in this ease have made no statements such as those made by the doctor in Amente, but have merely denied the allegations in the complaint and asserted affirmative defenses. Although respondents may be able to jus…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)