Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2024 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lopez v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Ramirez v. State, 374 So. 3d 71 , 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“A motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not cognizable where, as here, the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction and, only by extension, the ‘legality’ of the resulting sentence.”) See also Jimenez v. State, 389 So. 3d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023); Planas v. State, 271 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Morgan v. State, 888 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 4 3d DCA 2004) (acknowledging “a motion to correct illegal sentence is an appropriate procedure for challen 2023Weekly D1823 at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA August 31, 2022) (“A motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not cognizable where, as here, the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction and, only by extension, the ‘legality’ of the resulting sentence”) (citing Planas v. State, 271 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Morgan v. State, 888 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (acknowledging “a motion to correct illegal sentence is an appropriate procedure for challenging a sentence, but not a conviction”)). 2 | 5 | 7 |
Morgan v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Ramirez v. State, 374 So. 3d 71 , 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“A motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not cognizable where, as here, the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction and, only by extension, the ‘legality’ of the resulting sentence.”) See also Jimenez v. State, 389 So. 3d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023); Planas v. State, 271 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Morgan v. State, 888 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 4 3d DCA 2004) (acknowledging “a motion to correct illegal sentence is an appropriate procedure for challen 2023Weekly D1823 at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA August 31, 2022) (“A motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not cognizable where, as here, the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction and, only by extension, the ‘legality’ of the resulting sentence”) (citing Planas v. State, 271 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Morgan v. State, 888 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (acknowledging “a motion to correct illegal sentence is an appropriate procedure for challenging a sentence, but not a conviction”)). 2 | 5 | 5 |
Coughlin v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See also Morgan v. State, 888 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (acknowledging “a motion to correct illegal sentence is an appropriate procedure for challenging a sentence, but not a conviction”); Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224, 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding “a traditional double jeopardy challenge attacks both the conviction and, by default, the sentence, while rule 3.800(a) is limited to claims that the sentence itself is illegal, without regard to the underlying conviction”). 2022Weekly D1823 , 2022 WL 3903532 at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 31, 2022) (“A motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not cognizable where, as here, the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction and, only by extension, the ‘legality’ of the resulting sentence”) (citing Planas v. State, 271 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Morgan v. State, 888 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (acknowledging “a motion to correct illegal sentence is an appropriate procedure for challenging a sentence, but not a conviction”); Coughli | 4 | 6 |
KINGRY v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Weekly D1823 , D1824 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 31, 2022) (“A motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not cognizable where, as here, the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction and, only by extension, the ‘legality’ of the resulting sentence.”); Kingry v. State, 28 So. 3d 173, 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“Having freely and voluntarily entered into [a plea] agreement and accepted its benefits, appellant may not now seek to be relieved of one of the burdens imposed upon him pursuant to the agreement.”). 2 | 1 | 1 |
Mansfield v. Stategreen1 sentence2022Weekly D1823 , 2022 WL 3903532 at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 31, 2022) (“A motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not cognizable where, as here, the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction and, only by extension, the ‘legality’ of the resulting sentence”) (citing Planas v. State, 271 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Morgan v. State, 888 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (acknowledging “a motion to correct illegal sentence is an appropriate procedure for challenging a sentence, but not a conviction”); Coughli | 1 | 1 |
Parker v. Stategreen1 sentence2022Weekly D1823 , 2022 WL 3903532 at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 31, 2022) (“A motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not cognizable where, as here, the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction and, only by extension, the ‘legality’ of the resulting sentence”) (citing Planas v. State, 271 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Morgan v. State, 888 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (acknowledging “a motion to correct illegal sentence is an appropriate procedure for challenging a sentence, but not a conviction”); Coughli | 1 | 1 |
Messer v. Stategreen1 sentence2011State v. Espinosa, 686 So.2d 1345, 1348-49 (Fla.1996); Messer v. State, 757 So.2d 526, 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Espinosagreen1 sentence2011State v. Espinosa, 686 So.2d 1345, 1348-49 (Fla.1996); Messer v. State, 757 So.2d 526, 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Planas v. State
neutral
2 sentences2024Ramirez v. State, 374 So. 3d 71 , 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“A motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not cognizable where, as here, the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction and, only by extension, the ‘legality’ of the resulting sentence.”) See also Jimenez v. State, 389 So. 3d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023); Planas v. State, 271 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Morgan v. State, 888 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 4 3d DCA 2004) (acknowledging “a motion to correct illegal sentence is an appropriate procedure for challen 2023Weekly D1823 at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA August 31, 2022) (“A motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not cognizable where, as here, the defendant seeks to challenge the validity of the conviction and, only by extension, the ‘legality’ of the resulting sentence”) (citing Planas v. State, 271 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Morgan v. State, 888 So. 2d 128, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (acknowledging “a motion to correct illegal sentence is an appropriate procedure for challenging a sentence, but not a conviction”)). 2 | 4 | 2022–2024 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.