MICHAEL WARREN, 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.
Michael Warren appealed his 1992 conviction, but raised the appeal only after his 1994 resentencing following a prior state appeal of his sentence. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Warren was precluded from raising conviction issues because he could have cross-appealed when the state appealed his original sentence in 1992.
Warren is precluded from raising conviction issues in his delayed appeal because he could have secured review of the conviction in 1992 through cross-appeal when the state appealed his sentence. The law of the case doctrine prevents litigation of issues that could have been raised in the prior appeal. Warren had ample opportunity to file a timely appeal from his conviction and failed to do so, and should not be permitted to file a long-delayed appeal now.
[1] A defendant is precluded from raising issues relating to a conviction when they could have secured review of the conviction in a prior appeal and failed to do so.
[2] The law of the case doctrine prevents the litigation of issues that either were or could have been raised in a prior appeal.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“he is precluded from raising issues relating to his conviction as he could have secured review of the conviction in 1992 when the state appealed his sentence”
States the core holding that Warren forfeited his right to appeal conviction issues by failing to cross-appeal in 1992
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWarren was convicted and sentenced in 1992. The state appealed his downward departure sentence, but Warren did not file a cross-appeal of his convicti…
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 Belated Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, Judge.
After the filing of the briefs in this ease, we have reconsidered the state’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and we hereby grant the same.
Appellant was originally convicted and sentenced in 1992. The state appealed the downward departure sentence imposed by the trial court. Appellant did not cross-appeal his conviction, although cross-appeals would have been permitted. See, e.g., State v. McAdams, 559 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); State v. Smith, 557 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). This court reversed and remanded for resentencing, which occurred in 1994. See State v. Warren, 629 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the resentencing but then voluntarily dismissed it. This led to a petition for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, which we granted, thereby permitting a belated appeal from the resentencing.
In his brief, appellant does not challenge the resentencing but instead raises issues as to his original conviction in 1992.
We hold that he is precluded from raising issues relating to his conviction as he could have secured review of the conviction in 1992 when the state appealed his sentence. See State v. Stabile, 443 So. 2d 398, 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Neary v. State, 285 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
The law of the case doctrine applies and prevents the litigation of issues which either were or could have been raised in the prior appeal. See Jefferson v. State, 516 So. 2d 33, 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Appellant had ample opportunity to file his own appeal from his conviction and he failed to do so. He should not be permitted to file a long delayed appeal now. Although Wade v. State, 222 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), seems to permit an appeal from a conviction on resentencing, it appears that the second district has not followed it. See Williams v. State, 686 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), rev. denied, 694 So. 2d 739 (Fla.1997); Gaskins v. State, 502 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
We firmly subscribe to the notion that appeals should be seasonably pursued so that neither the prosecution nor the defense is prejudiced by undue delay.1
FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur. . Although we do not need to reach the substantive issues, we would note that both points raised have no merit.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mills v. State, 724 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…dity of the contested convictions that form the basis for the re-sentence. With regard to the state’s argument that the law of the case precludes raising issues that could have been raised in the original appeal, we have considered Warren v. State, 709 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (where defendant had not originally challenged his conviction in the state’s appeal of downward departure sentence, the law of the case precluded defendant from challenging his conviction on appeal from re-sentencing) (citing Jef…
-
Generazio v. State, 727 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…case precludes relitigation of all issues necessarily ruled upon by the court, as well as of all issues upon which appeal could have been taken, but which were not appealed.” State v. Stabile, 443 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). In Warren v. State, 709 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), the State appealed a downward departure sentence, but Warren did not [*335] cross-appeal his conviction, although cross-appeals were permitted. This court reversed and remanded for resentencing. Id. at 139. Warren appealed from…
-
Hastings v. State, 789 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…court affirmed. Hastings v. State, 729 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The doctrine of law of the case, therefore, applies, and the petitioner may not raise issues which either were or could have been raised in the prior appeal. See Warren v. State, 709 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We, therefore, deny certiorari. CERTIORARI DENIED WARNER, C.J., DELL and KLEIN, JJ., concur. . Case Nos. 4D90-2787, 4D94-1752 and 4D97-0825.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. McADAMS, 559 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- State v. Smith, 557 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Carroll E. Wade v. State, 222 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Kingsway Condo. Apts. NO. 1, Inc. v. Kingsway Builders, Inc., 443 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Neary v. State, 285 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- State v. Stabile, 443 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Gaskins v. State, 502 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Alfraedo Williams v. State, 686 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- State v. Warren, 629 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Jefferson v. State, 516 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)