Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

692 So. 2d 971

Docket No. 96-05077.

Price v. State

Frank PRICE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 25, 1997.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1997-04-25

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

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

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Sanchez v. State, 848 So. 2d 287 - State v. McBride

“contains no proscription against the filing of successive motions”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Garcia v. State, 848 So. 2d 287 - State v. McBride

Relies on Raley v. State · 661 So. 2d 71 - Barnes v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-04-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably 848 So. 2d 287 - State v. McBride (2003), Harris v. State (2000)

25 state decisions

160199720002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1PER CURIAM.

¶2Frank 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.

¶3Price 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).

¶4We 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.

¶5Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

¶6SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and BLUE, JJ., concur.

/692/so2d/971 · .json · Public domain