Jonnie Ravon v. State of Florida

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 22, 2025
Docket3D2025-1206
StatusPublished

This text of Jonnie Ravon v. State of Florida (Jonnie Ravon 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
Jonnie Ravon v. State of Florida, (Fla. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed October 22, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-1206 Lower Tribunal No. F98-39479C ________________

Jonnie Ravon, Appellant,

vs.

State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Maria Gonzaléz-Marqués, Judge.

Jonnie Ravon, in proper person.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LINDSEY, GORDO, and GOODEN, JJ.

LINDSEY, J. Appellant, Defendant below, Jonnie Ravon, appeals the summary

denial of a Rule 3.800(a) Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. This same issue

was raised and ruled on below in an order entered on August 1, 2014, and

our Court affirmed that order the following year. See Ravon v. State, 159 So.

3d 945, 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). Because defendants are not permitted to

raise similar claims in more than one motion, we are constrained to affirm.

See Swain v. State, 911 So. 2d 140, 143-44 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“[T]he law

of the case doctrine prevents a litigant from relitigating the same issues

previously considered and rejected on the merits and reviewed on appeal.”);

McGee v. State, 327 So. 3d 382, 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Finding that the

issue raised before the lower tribunal was squarely adjudicated by way of a

previously affirmed court order, and McGee has failed to demonstrate

manifest injustice capable of determination from the face of the record, we

affirm.”).

Moreover, successive postconviction proceedings raising claims

nearly identical to claims previously rejected are properly denied. See Butler

v. State, 95 So. 3d 294, 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (citing Hepburn v. State,

934 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)); McGee, 327 So. 3d at 383.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Hepburn v. State
934 So. 2d 515 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Swain v. State
911 So. 2d 140 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Ravon v. State
159 So. 3d 945 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Butler v. State
95 So. 3d 294 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jonnie Ravon v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jonnie-ravon-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2025.