Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Miller v. State

Miller v. State

937 So. 2d 1159, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14716, 2006 WL 2520826
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Miller v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 865 So. 2d 584 →
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 1, 2006·No. No. 3D05-1873·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A claim of vindictive sentencing cannot be raised by a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). See Morales v. State, 909 So.2d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Taylor v. State, 897 So.2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Treating the motion as a motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and assuming no procedural bar, the transcript excerpts cited by defendant-appellant Miller do not amount to vindictive sentencing within the meaning of Wilson v. State, 845 So.2d 142, 156 (Fla.2003).

Affirmed.

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

Miller v. State, 937 So. 2d 1159, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14716, 2006 WL 2520826 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

937 So. 2d 1159 (Miller v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Morales v. State
909 So. 2d 478 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Wilson v. State
845 So. 2d 142 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)
Taylor v. State
897 So. 2d 495 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)