BILL STROUD
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.
Double jeopardy challenges and challenges to the validity of convictions are not cognizable in a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
[1] Double jeopardy challenges to convictions are not cognizable in a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
[2] Challenges to the validity of a conviction, even when framed as challenges to the legality of a sentence, are not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a) motions.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“It is clear in the case law of this state that double jeopardy challenges to convictions are not cognizable under [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure] 3.800(a).”
Citing Lopez v. State for the principle that double jeopardy challenges cannot be raised through Rule 3.800(a) motions
Bill Stroud appealed multiple convictions and sentences from Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. He raised challenges concerning double jeopardy and the …
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 Plea Agreement Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“It is clear in the case law of this state that double jeopardy challenges to convictions are not cognizable under [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure] 3.800(a).”); Ramirez v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1823, D1824 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 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.”); Kingry v. State, 28 So. 3d 173, 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“Having freely and voluntarily entered into [a plea] agreement and accepted its benefits, appellant may not now seek to be relieved of one of the burdens imposed upon him pursuant to the agreement.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Kingry v. State, 28 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Torin Robinson v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)