ALVESTER JUAN JACKSON, 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 court affirmed the summary denial of Jackson's Rule 3.850 motion challenging his sentence, finding no newly discovered evidence and no illegality, and holding that the sentencing issues were successive and procedurally barred.
A Rule 3.850 motion raising sentencing issues previously considered and rejected in prior collateral proceedings is successive and procedurally barred.
[1] A successive Rule 3.850 motion raising sentencing issues previously considered and rejected in prior collateral proceedings is procedurally barred under Rule 3.850(b).
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 intelligenceJackson filed a Rule 3.850 motion claiming newly discovered evidence and an illegal sentence, specifically challenging whether he should have received…
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 Felony Degree Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Jackson appeals from the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he claims that he has newly discovered evidence, and that he received an illegal sentence. The trial court properly denied relief, finding that the matters raised were not truly newly discovered evidence nor was there an illegal sentence. We affirm.
In addition, we find that the lawfulness of Jackson’s sentence, i.e., whether he should have been given an habitual offender sentence and whether he should have been sentenced to a third-degree rather than a second-degree felony, are issues raised in his prior collateral proceedings. Since these issues were previously considered and rejected by this court, they are successive and procedurally barred. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850®. See Penn v. State, 688 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (successive motion properly denied). See also O'Brien v. State, 689 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 697 So. 2d 511 (Fla.1997) (procedural bars to be strictly construed under section 924.051(9), Florida Statutes); Bradley v. State, 703 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (frivolous suit can subject prisoner to gain time forfeiture).
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- O'Brien v. State, 689 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Bradley v. State, 703 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Penn v. State, 688 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)