Humberto De La Sota Rivera v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Humberto De La Sota Rivera v. State of Florida

186 So. 3d 1118, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 3640, 2016 WL 903631

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 9, 2016

Docket4D15-4014

StatusPublished

This text of 186 So. 3d 1118 (Humberto De La Sota Rivera v. State of Florida) 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

Humberto De La Sota Rivera v. State of Florida, 186 So. 3d 1118, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 3640, 2016 WL 903631 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. The issue appellant has raised was previously litigated and denied *1119 after an evidentiary, hearing m a rule 3.850 motion. The doctrine of collateral estop-pel, therefore, precluded appellant from rearguing his claim in this rule 3.800(a) motion. See State v.. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 290 (Fla.2003).

Further, the claim- lacks merit, and the “manifest injustice” exception recognized in McBride does not apply. Appellant had no legitimate expectation of finality in the orally 'pronounced general sentence 1 on the two counts at issue. See Dunbar v. State, 89 So.3d 901, 905 (Fla.2012). He has not shown that his written sentences, which were corrected that same day, are illegal or that the'correction to structure the sentences -on the two counts consecutively violated Double Jeopardy principles.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, C.J., STEVENSON and FORST, JJ., concur.

1

. Appellant is correct that the "genera! sentence” initially pronounced by the court was improper. Dorfman v. State, 351 So.2d 954, 957 (Fla. 1977); Holmes v. State, 100 So.3d 281, 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. The issue appellant has raised was previously litigated and denied *1119 after an evidentiary, hearing m a rule 3.850 motion. The doctrine of collateral estop-pel, therefore, precluded appellant from rearguing his claim in this rule 3.800(a) motion. See State v.. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 290 (Fla.2003).

Further, the claim- lacks merit, and the “manifest injustice” exception recognized in McBride does not apply. Appellant had no legitimate expectation of finality in the orally 'pronounced general sentence 1 on the two counts at issue. See Dunbar v. State, 89 So.3d 901, 905 (Fla.2012). He has not shown that his written sentences, which were corrected that same day, are illegal or that the'correction to structure the sentences -on the two counts consecutively violated Double Jeopardy principles.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, C.J., STEVENSON and FORST, JJ., concur.

1

. Appellant is correct that the "genera! sentence” initially pronounced by the court was improper. Dorfman v. State, 351 So.2d 954, 957 (Fla. 1977); Holmes v. State, 100 So.3d 281, 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 So. 3d 1118, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 3640, 2016 WL 903631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humberto-de-la-sota-rivera-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack