DAVID KNIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
DAVID KNIGHT, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
882 So. 2d 1081
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2004)
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. The trial court found that appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence was successive. We agree that the first ground for relief was successive. The second ground, in which appellant alleges that he could not be sentenced as a habitual felony offender for the delivery of cocaine, was not successive to his prior claims. Nevertheless, the motion was properly denied because that claim was without merit. See, e.g., Adams v. State, 724 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Paul v. State, 830 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Marrero v. State, 741 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Williams v. State, 667 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
WARNER, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Paul v. State, 830 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Williams v. State, 667 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Marrero v. State, 741 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Adams v. State, 724 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)