Case ID: so3d_186/html/1118-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HUMBERTO DE LA SOTA RIVERA, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
    No. 4D15-4014.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    March 9, 2016.
    Humberto De La Sota Rivera, South Bay, pro se.
    No appearance required for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. The issue appellant has raised was previously litigated and denied after an evidentiary, hearing m a rule 3.850 motion. The doctrine of collateral estop-pel, therefore, precluded appellant from rearguing his claim in this rule 3.800(a) motion. See State v.. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 290 (Fla.2003).

Further, the claim- lacks merit, and the “manifest injustice” exception recognized in McBride does not apply. Appellant had no legitimate expectation of finality in the orally 'pronounced general sentence on the two counts at issue. See Dunbar v. State, 89 So.3d 901, 905 (Fla.2012). He has not shown that his written sentences, which were corrected that same day, are illegal or that the'correction to structure the sentences -on the two counts consecutively violated Double Jeopardy principles.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, C.J., STEVENSON and FORST, JJ., concur. 
      
      . Appellant is correct that the "genera! sentence” initially pronounced by the court was improper. Dorfman v. State, 351 So.2d 954, 957 (Fla. 1977); Holmes v. State, 100 So.3d 281, 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).