CLARENCE DAVID RICHARDSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantive Due Process cases and more on FLexlaw
[*552] PER CURIAM.
Clarence David Richardson appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court denied the motion without addressing its merits, finding that Richardson’s claims had been raised in a prior motion and decided against him. The trial court therefore concluded that he was not entitled to successive review of those issues. See Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Because of certain allegations made by Richardson which suggested that the prior order addressing his claims may in fact be void and because Richardson alleged that his sentence is patently illegal, we reviewed the merits of the motion. See, e.g., Lawton v. State, 731 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that substantive due process requires that a patently illegal sentence be corrected despite the law of the case doctrine). After doing so, we conclude that Richardson’s sentence is legal and affirm the trial court’s order without further discussion.
Affirmed.
PARKER, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cruz v. State, 824 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…was the result of a plea, appellant may have agreed to the inclusion of these additional victim injury points, but nothing in the record demonstrates this either. An evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine this issue. See Cammilleri v. State, 779 So. 2d 551, 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Likewise, as to the jail credit issue, appellant claimed 397 days of jail credit but was awarded only 239 days. In its order denying this claim, the trial court attached the jail records the state provided in its response t…
Authorities Cited
- Lawton v. State, 731 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Wilson v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)