White v. State, 94-1276

Decision Date24 February 1995
Docket NumberNo. 94-1276,94-1276
Parties20 Fla. L. Weekly D482 Nathaniel WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Brynn Newton, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robin Compton Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

W. SHARP, Judge.

White appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to rule 3.800. He argues he was improperly sentenced as a violent habitual offender 1 because the predicate offense used was a 1977 manslaughter conviction. 2 It stemmed from a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol during the course of which White struck and killed a bicyclist with his car.

White took a direct appeal to this court. His sentences and convictions were per curiam affirmed. See White v. State, 576 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). This court has upheld sentencing a defendant as a violent felony offender based on a previous felony conviction approximately the equivalent of DUI/manslaughter. Canales v. State, 571 So.2d 87 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

In the prior direct appeal, based on this court's records, White in fact challenged his violent habitual felony offender sentence on the very grounds he now seeks to raise in the context of this appeal from a rule 3.800 motion. Under the law of the case doctrine (a species of res judicata ), White cannot raise this issue again. Sanders v. State, 621 So.2d 723 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 629 So.2d 135 (Fla.1993). A per curiam decision even without opinion establishes the law of the case on the same issues and facts which were raised or which could have been raised. Gaskins v. State, 502 So.2d 1344, 1346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); State v. Stabile, 443 So.2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Scott v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • January 13, 2004
    ...that relitigation of an issue is precluded when the appellate court previously has decided the issue); White v. State, 651 So.2d 726 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1995)(holding that, because the defendant's claim had been decided in a previous appeal, the law of the case doctrine precluded him from rais......
  • Scott v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 30, 2003
    ...35(a), of an `illegal sentence' where that issue has been previously decided by this Court." Id. at 579. Similarly, in White v. State, 651 So.2d 726 (Fla.App.1995),approved on other grounds, 666 So.2d 895 (Fla.1996), the Florida Court of Appeals considered the denial of a motion to correct ......
  • Raley v. State, 95-2070
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 10, 1996
    ...a claim of error which was raised and rejected on direct appeal. Pula v. State, 652 So.2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); White v. State, 651 So.2d 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), approved, 666 So.2d 895 (Fla.1996). Likewise, a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue decided ag......
  • Isom v. State, No. 3D00-2468
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 31, 2001
    ...curiam affirmance establishes the law of the case). See also Williams v. State, 686 So.2d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); White v. State, 651 So.2d 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)(a per curiam decision, even without opinion, establishes the law of the case on the same issues and facts which were raise......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT