Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Griffin v. State

Griffin v. State

912 So. 2d 586, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 20149, 2004 WL 3008879
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Griffin v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 838 So. 2d 1218 →
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 29, 2004·No. No. 2D04-3633·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Boyd v. State, 880 So.2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). After this court held in Boyd that a claim of vindictive sentencing is not cognizable in a motion to [587]*587correct 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.

DAVIS, KELLY, and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

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

Griffin v. State, 912 So. 2d 586, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 20149, 2004 WL 3008879 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

912 So. 2d 586 (Griffin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Johnson v. State
877 So. 2d 795 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Boyd v. State
880 So. 2d 726 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)