METAXOTOS v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

METAXOTOS v. State

37 So. 3d 991, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9873, 2010 WL 2679976

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 7, 2010

Docket4D09-2941

StatusPublished

This text of 37 So. 3d 991 (METAXOTOS v. State) 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

METAXOTOS v. State, 37 So. 3d 991, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9873, 2010 WL 2679976 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Metaxotos appeals the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. He concedes that every issue except one, his sexual predator designation, has been raised in previous 3.800 motions. He argues that he does not possess the requisite prior convictions as required by § 775.21, Fla. Stat. (1998), and the designation was not part of his plea agreement. The trial court, adopting the State’s response, ruled the issue was barred by the law of the case doctrine. We disagree and reverse.

While Metaxotos has filed numerous 3.850 and 3.800 motions, only one addressed whether he had the requisite convictions to be designated a sexual predator, and that motion was never actually decided on the merits because it was stricken for lack of jurisdiction. The law of the case doctrine applies only to issues decided on appeal. State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 289 (Fla.2003). “Without appellate review of the trial court’s order, the trial court’s order cannot become the law of the case.” Mordenti v. State, 982 So.2d 710, 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

This particular sexual predator designation issue was never decided on appeal, making the law of the case doctrine inapplicable. We reverse and remand for consideration of this one specific issue.

FARMER, HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Metaxotos appeals the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. He concedes that every issue except one, his sexual predator designation, has been raised in previous 3.800 motions. He argues that he does not possess the requisite prior convictions as required by § 775.21, Fla. Stat. (1998), and the designation was not part of his plea agreement. The trial court, adopting the State’s response, ruled the issue was barred by the law of the case doctrine. We disagree and reverse.

While Metaxotos has filed numerous 3.850 and 3.800 motions, only one addressed whether he had the requisite convictions to be designated a sexual predator, and that motion was never actually decided on the merits because it was stricken for lack of jurisdiction. The law of the case doctrine applies only to issues decided on appeal. State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 289 (Fla.2003). “Without appellate review of the trial court’s order, the trial court’s order cannot become the law of the case.” Mordenti v. State, 982 So.2d 710, 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

This particular sexual predator designation issue was never decided on appeal, making the law of the case doctrine inapplicable. We reverse and remand for consideration of this one specific issue.

FARMER, HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 So. 3d 991, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9873, 2010 WL 2679976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metaxotos-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack