JOHN MARK ANDERSON, 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 held that claims of illegal habitualization under Ashley v. State cannot be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
John Mark Anderson appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, which argued he was illegally habitualized. His prior mot…
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 Habitual Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
[*346] PER CURIAM.
John Mark Anderson appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. We affirm the trial court’s denial of relief, but write because the trial court’s analysis was flawed when it failed to address and refute Anderson’s claim that he was illegally ha-bitualized.
Anderson filed a prior motion to correct illegal sentence in this same case, which raised a double jeopardy claim. The trial court denied relief in an order rendered September 16, 1998. Anderson appealed that order, and this court affirmed. See Anderson v. State, 728 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). In September 1999, Anderson filed another motion seeking to have his habitual offender sentences declared illegal under Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1993). The trial court denied the motion as successive and attached the earlier order denying relief. Rule 3.800 contains no proscription against the filing of successive motions. SeeBarnes v. State, 661 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Nonetheless, a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided against him. See Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). In this case, Anderson’s prior motion, and the order denying relief, did not address his claims that his habitual felony offender sentences were illegal under Ashley. His current motion therefore is not barred as successive.
We nevertheless affirm the order denying Anderson’s claims because Ashley errors cannot be raised in a motion to correct illegal sentence. See Woodall v. State, 719 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding Ashley-type errors would not constitute an illegal sentence and must be raised in a timely motion for postconviction relief).
Affirmed.
PARKER, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 273 So. 3d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…. State, 60 So. 3d 396 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (table decision); Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Waiter v. State, 965 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Jones v. State, 901 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (table decision); Anderson v. State, 779 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Harris v. State, 777 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Paul v. State, 830 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). MORRIS, BLACK, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM,JJ., Concur.…
-
McCULLOUGH v. State, 859 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…minal Procedure 3.800. This court affirmed without opinion. McCullough v. State, 736 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). A defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided against him. Anderson v. State, 779 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). In this proceeding, McCullough simply adds the case of Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla.2003) as fresh authority for his argument. In that case the trial judge orally sentenced the defendant as an habitual felony offender.…
-
Harper v. State, 135 So. 3d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…ion); Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Harper v. State, 999 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (table decision); Bizzell v. State, 912 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Brown v. State, 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Anderson v. State, 779 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Harris v. State, 111 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Green v. State, 765 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); State v. McClain, 509 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Paul v. State, 830 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Harris v. State, 789…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993)
- Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Barnes v. State, 661 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Woodall v. State, 719 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)