JIMMY LEE BARNES, A/K/A, JIMMY LEE HARRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the defendant's claims were previously decided and no manifest injustice exception applies to revisit the prior decision.
Defendant appealed an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing his consecutive sentences were impermissible and he was imprope…
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 Manifest Injustice Exception cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal of an order denying a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Defendant-appellant Jimmy Lee Barnes a/k/a Jimmy Lee Harris, acknowledges that he previously filed the same claims and the denial of the motion was affirmed in Barnes v. State, 20 So.3d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). The defendant argues, however, that his claim should be considered under the manifest injustice exception to the res judicata doctrine. See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 291 (Fla.2003). We see no basis on which to revisit the earlier decision.
The defendant maintains that his consecutive sentences in Miami-Dade County circuit court case number 75-5643 are impermissible and that his sentences on those two counts should be concurrent. This issue was decided against the defendant on his direct appeal in Harris v. State, 338 So.2d 880, 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
The defendant argues alternatively that the sentencing court erred by allowing 161 days credit for jail time served on count one, but not the consecutive sentence on count two. The defendant’s argument is in error. See Daniels v. State, 491 So.2d 543, 545 (Fla.1986); Steadman v. State, 23 So.3d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). No manifest injustice has been shown.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1986)
- Steadman v. State, 23 So. 3d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Harris v. State, 338 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)