DENNIS J. FREEMAN, 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 denial of the motion for collateral relief because one of the grounds raised was successive and had been previously ruled upon.
Freeman sought collateral relief from his habitual offender sentence, arguing improper habitualization and an illegal sentence exceeding statutory max…
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 Statutory Maximum Penalty cases and more on FLexlaw
Freeman appeals from the denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he sought collateral relief from his conviction and sentence of 40 years in prison, as an habitual offender. He sought to vacate his 1987 habitual offender sentence on two grounds: 1) he was improperly habitual-ized for two offenses arising out of the same criminal episode; and 2) his sentence is illegal because it exceeds the statutory maximum penalty for the offenses. Crews v. State, 567 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Taylor v. State, 558 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
The trial court granted an evidentiary hearing on both grounds. The state conceded it had relied on two prior felonies contained in the same judgment of conviction to sentence Freeman as an habitual offender under section 775.084(l)(a). The trial court granted Freeman relief on the first ground and resentenced him to thirty years in prison as an habitual offender under section 775.084(l)(a)l, but it denied relief on the second ground.
We affirm. The second ground was raised in a prior motion dated May 4,1992. It was denied by the trial court in an order dated July 20, 1992, citing State v. Barnes, 595 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1992). This court affirmed.1 The order denying Freeman’s post-conviction motion in this proceeding attached to it the order dated July 20, 1992, which establishes this ground was previously raised and ruled upon on the merits. Thus that ground is improperly raised again, and is successive. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(f); Greene v. State, 716 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . Freeman v. State, 605 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Ransom Louis Collins, 985 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 2008)…present copies of defendant’s judgments and sentences); Sanders v. State, 765 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (resentencing ordered where State presented no evidence as to date defendant was released from prison for prior offenses); Freeman v. State, 773 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (noting that resentencing had been ordered after State improperly habitualized defendant for two offenses arising out of the same criminal episode); Smith v. State, 766 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (resentencing ordered where…
-
Brown v. State, 813 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…ered to be rule 3.800(a) claims. 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 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 cl…
-
Polk v. State, 820 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…nce claims had been raised in the prior proceeding, and that they were rejected as both legally insufficient and without merit, as shown by the attachments. Thus, the prohibition against successive motions applies in this ease. See Freeman v. State, 773 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), rev. denied, 805 So. 2d 806 (Fla.2001). AFFIRMED. GRIFFIN and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Barnes, 595 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1992)
- Taylor v. State, 558 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Gerry B. Greene v. State, 716 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Crews v. State, 567 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)