Smith v. State
Decision Date | 12 November 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 5D04-3152.,5D04-3152. |
Citation | 886 So.2d 336 |
Parties | Michael SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael Smith, Chipley, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
Smith appeals from the summary denial of his motion made pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) to correct an illegal sentence. He was sentenced on December 19, 1997, for crimes including two robbery offenses and two kidnapping offenses. In his motion, he asserts that the two kidnapping convictions violated double jeopardy because the type of confinement that was alleged and proved was inherent in the robbery offenses. We affirm.
A double jeopardy argument is a challenge to the judgment, not the sentence. It also raises factual issues underlying the judgment, which if the double jeopardy argument has merit, cannot be determined on the face of the judgment. Thus, Rule 3.800(a) does not provide an appropriate remedy. Bryant v. State, 800 So.2d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001),rev. denied, 819 So.2d 133 (Fla.2002) ( ); State v. Moten, 698 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997),rev. denied, 799 So.2d 218 (Fla.2001) ( ); Sanders v. State, 621 So.2d 723 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993),rev. denied,629 So.2d 135 (Fla.1993) ( ); State v. Spella, 567 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). (double jeopardy claim is a challenge to the conviction, not the sentence, and is inappropriate for a Rule 3.800 proceeding.)
Nor can Smith's motion be deemed to be one seeking relief under Rule 3.850, because it would be time barred.1 Smith was sentenced on December 19, 1997. He appealed and this court affirmed on December 15, 1998. More than two years have lapsed from the date his judgment became final before he filed this motion on July 12, 2004, under the "mail box" rule.2
Smith also alleged that he had been resentenced on February 17, 2002, pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). However, the resentencing did not affect the finality of his judgment. See Zeigler v. State, 632 So.2d 48, 50 (Fla.1993)
( ); Kissel v. State, 757 So.2d 631 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) ( ); Romahn v. State, 743 So.2d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burns v. Inch
...v. State, 6 So.3d 630, 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (same); Marrero v. State, 967 So.2d 934, 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (same); Smith v. State, 886 So.2d 336, 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (defendant's resentencing after direct appeal concluded did not affect the finality of his judgment; therefore, Rule 3......
-
Rogers v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a). "A double jeopardy argument is a challenge to the judgment, not the sentence." Smith v. State, 886 So.2d 336, 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). A double jeopardy challenge raises factual questions regarding the underlying conviction, which cannot be resolved from the......
-
Rainey v. Secretary for Dept. of Corrections, No. 04-13282.
...on which the judgment . . . of conviction became final"). The same rule obtains as a matter of Florida law. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 886 So.2d 336, 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (concluding "the resentencing did not affect the finality of [the appellant's] judgment [of conviction]"). While the ......
-
Mauldin v. State, 4D08-3985.
...See Henry v. State, 920 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). See also Coughlin v. State, 932 So.2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Smith v. State, 886 So.2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA The factual basis for Mauldin's plea is not disputed and it is clear from the face of the record. The only cognizable issue in t......