Richardson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Richardson v. State

779 So. 2d 551, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 304, 2001 WL 43013

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 19, 2001

DocketNo. 2D00-373

StatusPublished

This text of 779 So. 2d 551 (Richardson 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

Richardson v. State, 779 So. 2d 551, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 304, 2001 WL 43013 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Clarence David Richardson appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court denied the motion without addressing its merits, finding that Richardson’s claims had been raised in a prior motion and decided against him. The trial court therefore concluded that he was not entitled to successive review of those issues. See Price v. State, 692 So.2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Because of certain allegations made by Richardson which suggested that the prior order addressing his claims may in fact be void and because Richardson alleged that his sentence is patently illegal, we reviewed the merits of the motion. See, e.g., Lawton v. State, 731 So.2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that substantive due process requires that a patently illegal sentence be corrected despite the law of the case doctrine). After doing so, we conclude that Richardson’s sentence is legal and affirm the trial court’s order without further discussion.

Affirmed.

PARKER, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Clarence David Richardson appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court denied the motion without addressing its merits, finding that Richardson’s claims had been raised in a prior motion and decided against him. The trial court therefore concluded that he was not entitled to successive review of those issues. See Price v. State, 692 So.2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Because of certain allegations made by Richardson which suggested that the prior order addressing his claims may in fact be void and because Richardson alleged that his sentence is patently illegal, we reviewed the merits of the motion. See, e.g., Lawton v. State, 731 So.2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that substantive due process requires that a patently illegal sentence be corrected despite the law of the case doctrine). After doing so, we conclude that Richardson’s sentence is legal and affirm the trial court’s order without further discussion.

Affirmed.

PARKER, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

779 So. 2d 551, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 304, 2001 WL 43013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack