LARRY WILLIAMS
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not cognizable where the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction and only by extension the legality of the sentence.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not a cognizable vehicle for challenging the validity of a conviction; such motions are limited to addressi…
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 intelligence“a motion to correct illegal sentence is an appropriate procedure for challenging a sentence, but not a conviction”
Morgan v. State, 888 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
Larry Williams filed an appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County regarding a mo…
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 Legality Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Williams v. State, 284 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 290–91 (Fla. 2003) (holding that, although res judicata does not prevent a defendant from filing successive 3.800 motions raising new issues, collateral estoppel prevents a defendant from relitigating issues previously presented and decided). See also Ramirez v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1823 at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA August 31, 2022) (“A motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not cognizable where, as here, the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction and, only by extension, the ‘legality’ of the resulting sentence”) (citing Planas v. State, 271 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Lopez v. State,
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- D.A. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 888 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Torin Robinson v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Eniel Planas v. State, 321 So. 3d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Williams v. State, 284 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)