JOHN ANGUS WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2009-11-25
No. 4D09-1809
GROSS, C.J., FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
23 So. 3d 781 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2009)

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial court properly denied the appellant's successive and abusive postconviction relief claims.


Facts & Procedural History

The appellant sought postconviction relief, alleging an incorrectly tallied sentencing scoresheet. This claim had been repeatedly denied in prior moti…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

John Angus Wright seeks review of the orders that summarily denied his rule 3.800(a) motion for postconviction relief and an order denying his motion for rehearing. We affirm the trial court’s denial of his claims.

In one of Wright’s claims, he alleges that the trial court’s sentencing was affected by an incorrectly tallied sentencing scoresheet. This claim has been repeatedly raised and re-visited through multiple postconviction motions and each time has been denied. To the extent that Wright seeks relief on this issue, as the trial court admonished, his claim is successive and abusive.

While res judicata does not apply to a rule 3.800 motion, collateral estoppel does. See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 290 (Fla.2003). It applies when the same issue has already been litigated and precludes a defendant from rearguing a successive issue that was argued in a prior motion. Id. at 290-91. The law of the case doctrine also applies to postconviction motions. See id. at 291. If a motion is successive and there is no manifest injustice, then it cannot be brought again. Id. at 291-92.

We echo the trial court’s warning to Wright that his repeated filing of successive claims will result in proceedings to determine appropriate sanctions. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999).

Affirmed.

GROSS, C.J., FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw