Wise v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wise v. State

795 So. 2d 1019, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12497, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2158

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 5, 2001

DocketNo. 4D01-2096

StatusPublished

This text of 795 So. 2d 1019 (Wise 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

Wise v. State, 795 So. 2d 1019, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12497, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2158 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), in which he challenged the consecutive portion of his sentences for sexual battery and burglary of a dwelling with intent to commit an assault. Appellant previously challenged the legality of his sentences, including the consecutive nature of his sentencing in his direct appeal and in several motions filed under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850, which were denied.

We hereby prohibit appellant from any future filings concerning the issue of his consecutive sentencing, and caution him that if he violates this prohibition, he will face additional sanctions. Rivera v. State, 728 So.2d 1165, 1166 (Fla.1998); Dixon v. State, 763 So.2d 1050, 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 751 So.2d 1251 (Fla.2000); Prince v. State, 719 So.2d 346, 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 732 So.2d 328 (Fla.1999).

WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), in which he challenged the consecutive portion of his sentences for sexual battery and burglary of a dwelling with intent to commit an assault. Appellant previously challenged the legality of his sentences, including the consecutive nature of his sentencing in his direct appeal and in several motions filed under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850, which were denied.

We hereby prohibit appellant from any future filings concerning the issue of his consecutive sentencing, and caution him that if he violates this prohibition, he will face additional sanctions. Rivera v. State, 728 So.2d 1165, 1166 (Fla.1998); Dixon v. State, 763 So.2d 1050, 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 751 So.2d 1251 (Fla.2000); Prince v. State, 719 So.2d 346, 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 732 So.2d 328 (Fla.1999).

WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

795 So. 2d 1019, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12497, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wise-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack