Pittman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pittman v. State

8 So. 3d 1210, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3820, 2009 WL 1139259

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 2009

Docket3D08-881

StatusPublished

This text of 8 So. 3d 1210 (Pittman 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

Pittman v. State, 8 So. 3d 1210, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3820, 2009 WL 1139259 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, J.

Vernon Pittman (“Pittman”) appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus premised on Pittman’s claim that the thirty-year sentence he received for a 1971 second degree murder conviction violated his due process and double jeopardy rights. Because Pittman raised these arguments in two previous motions, which were denied by the trial court, and affirmed by this Court on appeal, and the petition under review does not contain any new allegations, we affirm on the basis of collateral estoppel and/or law of the case. See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287 (Fla.2003).

Because the additional claims raised in Pittman’s brief were not raised below, they are not properly before this Court on appeal. We, therefore, decline to address them on appeal. See Harrell v. State, 894 So.2d 935 (Fla.2005); Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901 (Fla.2002).

Affirmed.

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

ROTHENBERG, J.

Vernon Pittman (“Pittman”) appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus premised on Pittman’s claim that the thirty-year sentence he received for a 1971 second degree murder conviction violated his due process and double jeopardy rights. Because Pittman raised these arguments in two previous motions, which were denied by the trial court, and affirmed by this Court on appeal, and the petition under review does not contain any new allegations, we affirm on the basis of collateral estoppel and/or law of the case. See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287 (Fla.2003).

Because the additional claims raised in Pittman’s brief were not raised below, they are not properly before this Court on appeal. We, therefore, decline to address them on appeal. See Harrell v. State, 894 So.2d 935 (Fla.2005); Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901 (Fla.2002).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 So. 3d 1210, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3820, 2009 WL 1139259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pittman-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack