Knight v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Knight v. State

882 So. 2d 1081, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13044, 2004 WL 1933551

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 1, 2004·No. No. 4D04-2638·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. The trial court found that appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence was successive. We agree that the first ground for relief was successive. The second ground, in which appellant alleges that he could not be sentenced as a habitual felony offender for the delivery of cocaine, was not successive to his prior claims. Nevertheless, the motion was properly denied because that claim was [1082] without merit. See, e.g., Adams v. State, 724 So.2d 137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Paul v. State, 830 So.2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Marrero v. State, 741 So.2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Williams v. State, 667 So.2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).

WARNER, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. The trial court found that appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence was successive. We agree that the first ground for relief was successive. The second ground, in which appellant alleges that he could not be sentenced as a habitual felony offender for the delivery of cocaine, was not successive to his prior claims. Nevertheless, the motion was properly denied because that claim was [1082] without merit. See, e.g., Adams v. State, 724 So.2d 137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Paul v. State, 830 So.2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Marrero v. State, 741 So.2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Williams v. State, 667 So.2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).

WARNER, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Knight v. State, 882 So. 2d 1081, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13044, 2004 WL 1933551 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

882 So. 2d 1081 (Knight v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related