Shine v. State

95 So. 3d 465, 2012 WL 3608758, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14048
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 23, 2012·No. No. 1D11-5657·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court’s order denied the motion on the basis that it was procedurally barred. The order stated, in part:

The Court, being fully advised in the premises, finds that the defendant filed a notice of appeal from the original judgment and sentence, two motions for post-conviction relief and a motion to correct sentencing error. This Court has denied all prior claims and the rulings have been upheld on appeal. Defendant is barred from re-litigating this claim.

Collateral estoppel bars a party from re-litigating an identical claim that has been previously decided on the merits. See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 290 (Fla.2003). Here, the order on appeal does not indicate whether Appellant’s current Rule 3.800(a) motion raises claims identical to those previously litigated by Appellant or whether those prior claims were decided on the merits. Because the record

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

Shine v. State, 95 So. 3d 465, 2012 WL 3608758, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14048 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

95 So. 3d 465 (Shine v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee
377 So. 2d 1150 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)
Pleasure v. State
931 So. 2d 1000 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
State v. McBride
848 So. 2d 287 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)
Johnson v. State
60 So. 3d 1045 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2011)