PAUL TIMOTHY KING, 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 King's rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence for sale of cocaine, holding that the motion improperly attempted to challenge a conviction rather than correct an illegal sentence and was barred by collateral estoppel.
A rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence cannot be used to challenge the propriety of a conviction on procedurally barred or untimely grounds.
[1] A rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence is an improper vehicle for challenging a conviction on procedurally barred or untimely grounds.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKing was convicted and sentenced for sale of cocaine as a lesser-included offense for sale of cocaine within 1000 feet of a convenience store. He file…
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 Procedurally Barred Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence, which attempts to challenge the propriety of his conviction and sentence for sale of cocaine as a lesser-included offense for sale of cocaine within 1000 feet of a convenience store. The motion does not establish an “illegal” sentence that can be corrected at any time. See Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173, 1178 (Fla.2001). Instead, the motion attempts to bring a procedurally barred and untimely challenge to that conviction, an improper basis for the motion under rule 3.800(a), see Steed v. State, 120 So.3d 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Moreover, since appellant has raised this very claim twice before, the order is subject to affirmance based on collateral estoppels. Kittles v. State, 83 So.3d 958, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA), mandamus dismissed, 90 So.3d 271 (Fla.2012).
Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedures, including forfeiture of gain time. § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). Further, appellant is cautioned that future frivolous filings will result in additional sanctions such as a bar on pro se filings in this court. See State v. Spencer, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999).
Affirmed. Appellant referred for consideration of disciplinary procedures.
DAMOORGIAN, C.J., GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hallmon v. State, 139 So. 3d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…Appellant has not established an “illegal sentence” which can be corrected at any time. See Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173 (Fla.2001). Instead, appellant has filed a procedurally barred and untimely challenge to his conviction. See King v. State, 127 So. 3d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Because this court previously has warned appellant about filing frivolous post-conviction motions, we direct the Clerk of this Court to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of…
-
McKERNAN v. State, 139 So. 3d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…f gain time. § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). Further, appellant is cautioned that future frivolous filings will result in additional sanctions such as a bar on pro se filings in this court. State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999); King v. State, 127 So. 3d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Affirmed. Appellant referred for consideration of disciplinary procedures. MAY, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2001)
- Kittles v. State, 83 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Steed v. State, 120 So. 3d 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)