LEE C. BLACK, 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.
Lee Black appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing his habitual felony offender (HFO) sentences for armed robbery and armed burglary were improper and violated double jeopardy. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Black was procedurally barred from relitigating issues already decided in a prior motion, and that even on the merits, the trial court properly imposed life sentences for first-degree felonies under the HFO statute.
Black was procedurally barred from raising claims previously decided on the merits in a prior motion. On the merits, the trial court properly imposed life sentences under the HFO statute because armed robbery and armed burglary are first-degree felonies punishable by life, not life felonies, and are therefore subject to enhancement under the habitual offender statute. Double jeopardy challenges to convictions cannot be raised in a rule 8.800(a) motion.
[1] A prior judgment on the merits is final with regard to all matters addressed by the trial court in that order, even if the order was never appealed.
[2] A claim that a judgment of conviction was entered in violation of double jeopardy protections cannot be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
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“A prior judgment on the merits is final with regard to all matters addressed by the trial court in that order, even if the order was never appealed to the District Court of Appeal.”
Establishes res judicata bar preventing relitigation of issues previously decided in a prior motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlack was sentenced as a habitual felony offender (HFO) to life imprisonment for armed robbery and armed burglary. He filed a motion to correct an ill…
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 Life Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the denial of appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court correctly found that the appellant was procedurally barred from raising his claim. Appellant raised the identical issue in a prior rule 3.800 motion that was fully litigated and denied by the trial court. See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 288-91 (Fla.2003). A prior judgment on the merits is final with regard to all matters addressed by the trial court in that order, even if the order was never appealed to the District Court of Appeal. Id. at 292.
In any event, there was no error in appellant’s habitual felony offender (HFO) sentences for armed robbery and armed burglary, as the sentencing court had the authority to sentence appellant to life imprisonment as an HFO for those offenses. Armed robbery and armed burglary are first-degree felonies punishable by life, not life felonies. See §§ 812.13(2)(a), 810.02(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1996); see also Franke v. State, 997 So.2d 424, 425-26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that armed robbery and armed burglary cannot be reclassified to life felonies under section 775.087(1), Florida Statutes, because the use of a weapon or firearm is an essential element of each offense). First-degree felonies punishable by a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment are subject to enhancement under the habitual offender statute. See Burdick v. State, 594 So.2d 267, 271 (Fla.1992) (holding that a first-degree felony punishable by life was subject to an enhanced sentence pursuant to the provisions of the habitual felony offender statute, which at the time provided for sentence enhancement for first-degree felonies but not life felonies).
*831With respect to appellant’s double jeopardy claim, a claim that a judgment of conviction was entered in violation of double jeopardy protections cannot be raised in a rule 8.800(a) motion because the challenge is to the conviction and not to the sentence. Henry v. State, 920 So.2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Safrany v. State, 895 So.2d 1145, 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Smith v. State, 886 So.2d 336, 337-38 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Affirmed.
POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jerrold Baron v. State, 125 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…als dis-positive or preclusive of the issue here. Ordinarily, a double jeopardy challenge to a defendant’s convictions cannot be argued in a rule 3.800(a) motion, as the challenge relates to the convictions rather than the sentences. Black v. State, 52 So. 3d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Insofar as the previous motions challenged his sentences on double jeopardy grounds, the trial court orders did not reach the merits of the issue, and we do not find that Baron is precluded by estoppel from raising his clai…
-
Pena v. State, 127 So. 3d 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…revoked license causing serious bodily injury or death and leaving the scene of crash causing death violate double jeopardy. The denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a) was proper. Black v. State, 52 So. 3d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citing Henry v. State, 920 So. 2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). We affirm the order of denial, but do so without prejudice to appellant filing a timely motion for post-conviction relief under Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850 that r…
-
Deleagal v. State, 199 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Black v. State, 52 So. 3d 830, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). GROSS, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1992)
- Gary v. State, 895 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Thomas v. State, 252 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
- Tomika Henry v. State, 920 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Hinton v. Hinton, 886 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Smith v. State, 886 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Franke v. State, 997 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)