CHARLES MOORE, 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.
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence.
The defendant appealed an order summarily denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The same grounds for relief had been raised and rejected …
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 Statutory Maximum cases and more on FLexlaw
The Defendant appeals an order summarily denying his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm.
Although the trial court failed to attach portions of the record to refute the facially sufficient allegations, the same ground for relief was raised and rejected on direct appeal, Moore v. State, 727 So.2d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (Table). The law of the case precludes its reconsideration now. See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 290-91 (Fla.2003); Hastings v. Krischer, 840 So.2d 267, 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
If we were to reach the merits, we would still affirm. See Terry v. State, 808 So.2d 1249, 1252 (Fla.2002) (“[I]f a defendant agrees to a hybrid split sentence as part of an otherwise valid plea agreement and the negotiated sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum for the particular offense involved, the court may impose incarceration under the guidelines followed by probation as an habitual offender.”).
Affirmed.
MAY, C.J., POLEN and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Terry v. State, 808 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 2002)
- Hastings v. Hon. Barry Krischer, 840 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)