Case Name: James WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-08-03
Citations: 417 So. 2d 780
Docket Number: No. 82-77
Parties: James WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 417
Pages: 780–782

Head Matter:
James WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 82-77.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug. 3, 1982.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Alan R. Dakan, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Steven R. Jacob, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
We again reject the claim that a sentence involving a longer period of imprisonment which is imposed as a result of a motion filed by the defendant to correct the original sentence under Villery v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 396 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1981) runs afoul of North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). Willis v. State, 413 So.2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
It may also be observed that seeking Vil-/ery-related relief is always a matter of voluntary choice, with the possible consequences of that action fully and previously known to the movant. In this case, moreover, the trial court both specifically informed Williams what the corrected sentence would be and afforded him the opportunity, which he rejected, to withdraw the Villery motion if he wished to do so. Thus, both as a general rule and in this specific instance, an appellate consideration of the Pearce claim would seem to be barred by the doctrine of invited error. 3 Fla.Jur.2d Appellate Review § 294 (1978).
Affirmed.