FRANCIS VAUGHAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant has appealed a denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The issue he has raised is identical to one he raised in a prior rule 3.800(a) motion which was denied on the merits and affirmed without opinion by this court.
The law of the case doctrine applies when the defendant seeks to litigate a specific issue decided on the merits in an earlier post conviction proceeding regarding the legality of the sentence. Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), cause dismissed, 678 So. 2d 1287 (Fla.1996), appeal dismissed, 683 So. 2d 484 (Fla.1996). Appellant is thus barred from raising the issue he has raised here, which is whether the trial court erred in not giving him credit for time served on probation and community control. We therefore affirm.
WARNER, C.J., KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 813 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…) allows a claim of illegal sentence to be raised at any time, it does not obviate the law of the case doctrine. See Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). See also Freeman v. State, 773 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Vaughan v. State, 765 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Because we conclude that Brown’s claims are successive and improper and are barred by the law of the case doctrine, we caution Brown against, bringing additional frivolous claims in this court which present the same issues. See…
-
Hepburn v. State, 844 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Although rule 3.800(a) allows a claim of illegal sentence to be raised at any time, it does not obviate the law of the case doctrine. See Brown v. State, 813 So. 2d 132, 134 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Vaughan v. State, 765 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170, 173-74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).…
-
Otero v. State, 884 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…hallenges the original order of probation on the same ground he raised in the prior appeal, even though this ground was not raised as an issue in his revocation proceeding. Appellant cannot relitigate issues decided previously. See Vaughan v. State, 765 So. 2d 56, 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“The law of the case doctrine applies when the defendant seeks to litigate a specific issue decided on the merits in an earlier post conviction proceeding regarding the legality of the sentence.”); Sheffield v. State, 605 So…
Authorities Cited
- Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)