Bradley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bradley v. State

903 So. 2d 221, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 4323, 2005 WL 711711

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 30, 2005

DocketNo. 2D04-5791

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 903 So. 2d 221 (Bradley v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bradley v. State, 903 So. 2d 221, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 4323, 2005 WL 711711 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Gipson v. State, 616 So.2d 992 (Fla.1993); State v. McCloud, 577 So.2d 939 (Fla.1991); Castle v. State, 330 So.2d 10 (Fla.1976); Boyd v. State, 880 So.2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 888 So.2d 621 (Fla.2004); Cook v. State, 816 So.2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Ishmael v. State, 735 So.2d 509 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Plowman v. State, 586 So.2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Middleton v. State, 721 So.2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

After this court held in Boyd, 880 So.2d at 728, that a claim of vindictive sentencing is not cognizable in a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), the Fifth District in Johnson v. State, 877 So.2d 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), reversed a circuit court order denying a rule 3.800(a) motion and remanded for consideration of the claim of vindictive sentencing raised in the motion. We certify direct conflict with Johnson.

Affirmed; conflict certified.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and NORTHCUTT and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI