From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Price v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 25, 1997
692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that rule 3.800 contains no proscription against successive motions

Summary of this case from Johnson v. State
See 7 Summaries

Opinion

CASE NO. 96-05077

Opinion filed April 25, 1997.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(g) from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Janette Dunnigan, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Frank Price appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. We reverse because the trial court failed to address and refute Price's claim that he was not properly credited with time spent in jail prior to the imposition of his sentence in case number 95-1397. In all other respects the trial court's order is affirmed.

Price filed a prior motion for jail credit in cases numbered 95-1396, 95-1415, 95-1749 and 95-1697. The trial court denied relief in an order rendered August 6, 1996. Price did not appeal this order. In October 1996 Price filed another motion asking for jail credit for the above case numbers as well as for case number 95-1397. The trial court denied the motion as successive and attached the earlier order denying relief. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 contains no proscription against the filing of successive motions. Barnes v. State, 661 So.2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). However, a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided against him. Raley v. State, 675 So.2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

We reverse the order denying the motion because it fails to refute Price's assertion that the trial court neglected to award him the correct county jail credit in case number 95-1397.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and BLUE, JJ., Concur.

Summaries of

Price v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 25, 1997
692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

holding that rule 3.800 contains no proscription against successive motions

Summary of this case from Johnson v. State

holding defendant is not entitled to successive review under rule 3.800 of "a specific issue" which has already been decided against him

Summary of this case from Wilson v. State

holding defendant is not entitled to successive review of "a specific issue" which has already been decided against him

Summary of this case from Sanchez v. State

noting that rule 3.800 "contains no proscription against the filing of successive motions" but that "a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided against him"

Summary of this case from Collins v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.

noting that rule 3.800 "contains no proscription against the filing of successive motions" but that "a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided against him"

Summary of this case from State v. McBride

noting that rule 3.800 “contains no proscription against the filing of successive motions” but that “a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided against him ”

Summary of this case from Garcia v. State

confirming that successive review of issues raised in 3.800 motions is not authorized

Summary of this case from Tannehill v. State
Case details for

Price v. State

Case Details

Full title:FRANK PRICE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Apr 25, 1997

Citations

692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

Citing Cases

Wooten v. State

Affirmed. See Price v. State, 692 So.2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Raley v. State, 675 So.2d 170, 173 (Fla. 5th…

Wilson v. State

We accordingly conclude that Wilson's current claim is not barred under the successiveness doctrine. Cf.…

27 Citing Cases