MARCO PACE v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 21, 2023·No. 23-0017·Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed June 21, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D23-0017

Lower Tribunal Nos. F98-36722, & F99-4398

Marco Pace,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Robert T. Watson, Judge.

Marco Pace, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before HENDON, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 290 (Fla. 2003)

(“Although res judicata may not apply to motions filed under rule 3.800, the similar, but more narrow, doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, does apply.”); Ali v. State, 911 So. 2d 164, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“[T]he trial court correctly denied the defendant’s claim regarding lack of notice as this claim may not be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 . . . .”).

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

MARCO PACE v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, (Fla. Ct. App. 2023).

MARCO PACE v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA (MARCO PACE v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. McBride
848 So. 2d 287 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)
Ali v. State
911 So. 2d 164 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)