ULYSSES BROWN, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence, finding the claims were conclusively refuted by the record. However, it struck a portion of the trial court's order that barred the appellant from filing future motions.
The appellate court held that the trial court correctly denied the motion to correct an illegal sentence because the record refuted the claims. However, the trial court could not bar the appellant from filing future motions, as an illegal sentence can be corrected at any time.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) may be filed at any time.
[2] A trial court order barring a defendant from filing any further motions for reduction or modification of sentence must be stricken.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because the record conclusively refutes appellant’s claims, we affirm.”
This quote establishes the primary reason for affirming the denial of the motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUlysses Brown appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. His current motion was identical to a previous one that had been denie…
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 Gain Time Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Ulysses Brown, appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the record conclusively refutes appellant’s claims, we affirm. See Alvarez v. State, 358 So. 2d 10, 12 (Fla.1978); Johnson v. State, 641 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Green v. State, 630 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Edgecomb v. State, 587 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
We affirmed appellant’s sentence on direct appeal. Brown v. State, 447 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)(striking only the three-year minimum mandatory sentence on the robbery count that did not involve a firearm).
We also have addressed, in a per curiam affirmance of the trial court’s denial, appellant’s claim that the trial court improperly retained jurisdiction over a portion of his sentence. Brown v. State, 646 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
Appellant’s current motion is an exact duplicate of the motion which was denied by the trial court in 1996. While the trial court understandably felt that this was a frivolous claim, we still must strike that portion of the trial court’s order which bars appellant from filing “any further motions for reduction or modification of sentence.” An “illegal” sentence may be corrected pursuant to rule 3.800(a) at any time. If appellant has new grounds for relief, he may raise them.
However, we would direct appellant’s attention to section 944.28(2)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). The filing of successive pleadings that raise issues which have already been decided on the merits is an abuse of process and can result in the forfeiture of gain-time or other sanctions. See Rooney v. State, 699 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Mercade v. State, 698 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence but strike that portion of the order which bars appellant from raising any more pleadings to reduce or modify his sentence.
BARFIELD, C.J., JOANOS, J., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Alphonso Alvarez v. State, 358 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1978)
- Rooney v. State, 699 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Rafial A. Mercade v. State, 698 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Green v. State, 630 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Widmer v. State, 641 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Edgecomb v. State, 587 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Ulysses Brown v. State, 447 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)