SYLVESTER JOHNSON, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed denial of most postconviction ineffective assistance claims as successive but reversed and remanded the claim that written sentence did not conform to oral pronouncement, which is cognizable under Rule 3.800(a) and not subject to the successive-motion bar.
A claim that the written sentence does not conform to the oral pronouncement is cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and may not be denied as successive merely because it was included in a Rule 3.850 motion.
[1] A claim that a written sentence does not conform to the oral pronouncement of the trial court is cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and may not…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided”
Brazell v. State, discussing the limits on successive motions under Rule 3.800(a)
Sylvester Johnson filed a postconviction motion combining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under Rule 3.850 and claims of illegal sentence …
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 Successive Postconviction Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sylvester Johnson challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his postconviction motion. Johnson’s motion included claims filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 that his trial counsel was ineffective and also included claims filed under rule 3.800(a) that his sentence was illegal. The trial court denied Johnson’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on the ground that they were successive. We affirm the denial of all but one of Johnson’s claims.
Among his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, Johnson included a claim that the written sentence did not conform to the oral pronouncement of the trial court.1 This claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding. Dawson/Knapp v. State, 698 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The trial court did not address this issue on the merits as it did Johnson’s other 3.800(a) claims, but denied it as successive. Previously unheard claims filed pursuant to rule 3.850 may be denied as successive. Zeigler v. State, 632 So. 2d 48 (Fla.1993). However, rule 3.800(a) does not prohibit the filing of successive motions, although “a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided.” Brazell v. State, 770 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings on this claim.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and SALCINES, JJ., concur. . Johnson titled this claim "Issue 20 or 21.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Zeigler v. State, 632 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1993)
- Cynthia Ann Dawson/Knapp v. State, 698 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Curry v. Moore, 770 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Brazell v. State, 770 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)