NATHAN LYNN JONES, 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.
Nathan Lynn Jones appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to enforce his sentence, arguing that the Department of Corrections was not properly awarding him gain time and that he had not been resentenced pursuant to Heggs v. State in one case. The appellate court affirmed the denial regarding gain time but reversed and remanded regarding the Heggs resentencing issue.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion regarding gain time because successive review of an already-decided issue is not permitted. The court reversed and remanded regarding the Heggs resentencing issue in case 96-01090AXX because the record did not clearly show whether Jones had been resentenced in that case or was not entitled to Heggs relief.
[1] A defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue that has already been decided against them.
[2] A trial court must address all claims raised in a defendant's motion, even if some claims have been previously decided.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Jones is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided against him.”
Establishes the principle preventing relitigation of the gain time issue that was already decided against Jones.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones was resentenced in multiple cases on August 15, 2000 pursuant to Heggs v. State. On May 29, 2001, Jones filed a motion to enforce claiming the D…
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 Gain Time Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
Nathan Lynn Jones appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to enforce sentence. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On August 15, 2000, Jones was resen-tenced in numerous cases pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). On May 29, 2001, Jones filed a “motion to enforce,” which the trial court treated as a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. In that motion, Jones argued that the Department of Corrections was not properly awarding him gain time pursuant to the trial court’s order at his August 2000 resentencing and that the trial court had failed to resentence him pursuant to Heggs in case number 96-01090AXX. On June 13, 2001, the trial court entered an order denying Jones’s motion on the gain time issue. The trial court’s order did not address Jones’s claim concerning Heggs resentencing in case number 96-01090AXX.
Jones appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to this court. This court issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s order on the gain time issue, but remanding for the trial court to address Jones’s motion concerning the Heggs issue in case number 96-01090AXX. See Jones v. State, 805 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). On remand, the trial court entered an “order after remand” stating that it had already resentenced Jones pursuant to Heggs. The trial court also reaffirmed its denial of Jones’s motion as to the gain time issue. This “order on remand” resulted in this appeal.
We affirm the trial court’s order on the gain time issue because Jones is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided against him. Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). However, we reverse and remand to the trial court on the issue of sentencing in case number 96-01090AXX. While it is clear that the trial court resentenced Jones pursuant to Heggs in some cases, nothing in our record shows that Jones was ever resentenced pursuant to Heggs in case number 96-01090AXX. On remand, the trial court must either attach those portions of the record showing that Jones is not entitled to Heggs relief in case number 96-01090AXX or showing that Jones has already been resentenced pursuant to Heggs in that case.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
NORTHCUTT and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Wilson v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Jones v. State, 805 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)