Title: State of Florida v. Antoine L. McBride
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC02-627
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: May 15, 2003

Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC02-627
____________
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Petitioner,
vs.
ANTOINE L. MCBRIDE,
Respondent.
[May 15, 2003]
CANTERO, J.
We review McBride v. State, 810 So. 2d 1019, 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), in
which the district court of appeal certified the following question of great public
importance:
IS A DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO RELIEF PURSUANT TO A
SUCCESSIVE RULE 3.800(a) MOTION TO CORRECT AN
ILLEGAL SENTENCE WHEN THE DEFENDANT RAISED THE
IDENTICAL ISSUE IN A PRIOR RULE 3.800(a) MOTION THAT
WAS DENIED BY THE TRIAL COURT BUT NEVER APPEALED
TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL?
-2-
We have jurisdiction.  Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.  We answer the question in the
negative and quash the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
I. Facts
Pursuant to a plea agreement, McBride entered a plea of nolo contendere to
charges of attempted first-degree murder with a firearm, possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon, and robbery with a firearm.  See McBride, 810 So. 2d at 1020. 
The court sentenced him as a habitual felony offender to concurrent thirty-year
terms of imprisonment on each of the three counts.  Id.  In May 1990, however,
when he committed the attempted first-degree murder, which is a life felony, life
felonies were not subject to sentence enhancement under the habitual offender
statute.  See Lamont v. State, 610 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1992).  
In 2000, respondent filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.800(a), asserting that the habitual offender sentence imposed for the attempted
first-degree murder was illegal and requesting that he be resentenced.  The court
denied the motion, and McBride did not appeal.  The following year, McBride filed
another motion under the same rule asserting the same argument.  Noting the
successive nature of the claim, the trial court denied the motion, and this time
McBride appealed.  The Fifth District reversed, holding that the law of the case
doctrine did not bar review by an appellate court and that the illegal sentence should
-3-
be corrected.  The appellate court thus reversed and remanded for further
proceedings and certified the question quoted above.  McBride, 810 So. 2d at
1023.
II. McBride’s Habitual Offender Sentence
This Court previously has held that habitual offender sentences imposed for
life felonies when life felonies were not subject to the habitual offender statute are
illegal.  See Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173, 1180 (Fla. 2001); Lamont v. State,
610 So. 2d 435, 438 (Fla. 1992).  It is therefore undisputed that McBride's habitual
offender sentence for attempted first-degree murder is illegal.  Such a sentence
ordinarily may be corrected under rule 3.800(a).  See Carter, 786 So. 2d at 1180. 
Because McBride already had filed the identical motion and the court had denied it,
however, we must determine whether McBride is procedurally barred from
obtaining relief.  Our standard of review on such an issue is de novo.  See West v.
State, 790 So. 2d 513, 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); see also State v. Nuckolls, 677
So. 2d 12, 13 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (noting that "[t]he issues in this case revolve
around the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and therefore we review de novo the
trial court's ruling").
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) provides as follows, in relevant
part:
-4-
A court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it, or
an incorrect calculation made by it in a sentencing scoresheet, or a
sentence that does not grant proper credit for time served when it is
affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face
an entitlement to that relief . . . .
As we have previously stated, rule 3.800(a) "is intended to balance the need for
finality of convictions and sentences with the goal of ensuring that criminal
defendants do not serve sentences imposed contrary to the requirements of law." 
Carter, 786 So. 2d at 1176.  A sentence is illegal if it imposes "a kind of punishment
that no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict
under any set of factual circumstances."  Id. at 1178 (quoting and approving
definition in Blakley v. State, 746 So. 2d 1182, 1186-87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)).
III.  The Law of the Case Doctrine
  The district court correctly held that the law of the case doctrine does not
prevent McBride from relitigating the legality of his habitual offender sentence. 
That doctrine requires that “questions of law actually decided on appeal must
govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages
of the proceedings.” Florida Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla.
2001) (emphasis added).  Law-of-the-case principles do not apply unless the issues
are decided on appeal.  Id.; see also Kelly v. State, 739 So. 2d 1164, 1164 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1999) (holding that "[s]uccessive 3.800(a) motions re-addressing issues
-5-
previously considered and rejected on the merits and reviewed on appeal are barred
by the doctrine of law of the case").  Because McBride did not appeal the previous
order denying his rule 3.800 motion, the district court correctly held that the law of
the case doctrine does not apply.
IV.  Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Principles
Our conclusion that the law of the case doctrine does not bar McBride’s
claim does not, however, end our analysis.  The State urges us to apply the
common law doctrine of res judicata.  This Court has explained that doctrine as
follows:
A judgment on the merits rendered in a former suit between the same
parties or their privies, upon the same cause of action, by a court of
competent jurisdiction, is conclusive not only as to every matter which
was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every
other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and
determined in that action.
Juliano, 801 So. 2d at 105 (quoting Kimbrell v. Paige, 448 So. 2d 1009, 1012 (Fla.
1984)).  Thus, under res judicata, a judgment on the merits bars a subsequent
action between the same parties on the same cause of action.  See Denson v. State,
775 So. 2d 288, 290 (Fla. 2000) (applying res judicata to deny a habeas petition
where the defendant had raised the same claim in a 3.800 motion decided against
him on the merits and the defendant had exhausted all appropriate appellate review). 
1. Both res judicata and collateral estoppel apply in criminal and civil
contexts.  See, e.g., Thompson v. Crawford, 479 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
(noting that the doctrine of res judicata is as applicable to judgments in criminal
prosecutions as to civil cases); Brown v. State, 397 So. 2d 320, 322 (Fla. 2d DCA
1981) (holding that denial of motions to suppress in a bookstore robbery case was
proper under a theory of collateral estoppel where the same witness identification
was the subject of prior suppression motions denied in a market robbery case). 
-6-
Res judicata, however, prohibits not only relitigation of claims raised but also the
litigation of claims that could have been raised in the prior action.  Juliano, 801 So.
2d at 105.  The doctrine would require a motion to correct an illegal sentence to
raise all arguments that the sentence is illegal.  Subsequent motions would be barred
if they contained arguments that were or could have been raised in the prior motion. 
Rule 3.800, however, allows a court to correct an illegal sentence "at any time." 
Florida courts have held, and we agree, that the phrase “at any time” allows
defendants to file successive motions under rule 3.800.  See Raley v. State, 675 So.
2d 170, 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Barnes v. State, 661 So. 2d 71, 71 (Fla. 2d DCA
1995).  Thus, rule 3.800 expressly rejects application of res judicata principles to
such motions.
Again, however, this conclusion does not end the analysis.  Although res
judicata may not apply to motions filed under rule 3.800, the similar, but more
narrow, doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, does apply.1  We have
explained that doctrine as follows:
-7-
"Collateral estoppel is a judicial doctrine which in general terms
prevents identical parties from relitigating the same issues that have
already been decided."  Department of Health & Rehabilitative
Services v. B.J.M., 656 So. 2d 906, 910 (Fla.1995).  Under Florida
law, collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, applies when "the identical
issue has been litigated between the same parties or their privies." 
Gentile v. Bauder, 718 So. 2d 781, 783 (Fla.1998).  In addition, the
particular matter must be fully litigated and determined in a contest that
results in a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction.  See
B.J.M., 656 So.2d at 910.
City of Oldsmar v. State, 790 So. 2d 1042, 1046 n.4 (Fla. 2001).  Although
collateral estoppel generally precludes relitigation of an issue in a subsequent but
separate cause of action, its intent, which is to prevent parties from rearguing the
same issues that have been decided between them, applies in the postconviction
context.  As explained above, under the principles of res judicata a defendant
would be prohibited from filing any successive 3.800 motion on any issue that was
or could have been raised.  Collateral estoppel, on the other hand, only precludes a
defendant from rearguing in a successive rule 3.800 motion the same issue argued
in a prior motion.
This analysis is consistent with the application of rule 3.800 in the district
courts of appeal.  For example, in Smith v. State, 685 So. 2d 912, 912 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1996), the Fifth District considered "whether the defendant may obtain relief,
based on a claim that he was not given proper gain time credit, by a successive rule
-8-
3.800 motion."  The court concluded that “[w]hile it may be correct that rule 3.800
does not prohibit successive motions, we hold that where, as here, a defendant
raises an issue under rule 3.800, the lower court denies relief and the defendant fails
to appeal, he may not later raise the same issue in another rule 3.800 motion.”  Id. 
Accord Tisdol v. State, 823 So. 2d 300, 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); see also Jenkins
v. State, 749 So. 2d 527, 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (noting that a defendant may not
raise the same illegal sentencing issue in successive postconviction motions); Price
v. State, 692 So. 2d 971, 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (noting that rule 3.800 "contains
no proscription against the filing of successive motions" but that "a defendant is
not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided
against him").  In barring the filing of successive repetitive 3.800 motions, these
courts essentially have applied collateral estoppel principles.
V.  Manifest Injustice
Our application of collateral estoppel principles does not end the analysis,
either.  We must still decide whether a manifest injustice exception exists in the
context of collateral estoppel, and if it does, whether manifest injustice would
prohibit application of that doctrine.
This Court has long recognized that res judicata will not be invoked where it
would defeat the ends of justice.  See deCancino v. E. Airlines, Inc., 283 So. 2d
-9-
97, 98 (Fla. 1973); Universal Constr. Co. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 68 So. 2d
366, 369 (Fla. 1953).  The law of the case doctrine also contains such an exception. 
See Strazulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1965).  We have found no Florida
case holding that such an exception applies to collateral estoppel.  Federal courts
and other state courts, however, have held that the collateral estoppel doctrine does
contain such a manifest injustice exception.  See, e.g., Comm'r of Internal Revenue
v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 599 (1948); Thompson v. Schweiker, 665 F.2d 936, 940
(9th Cir. 1982); Tipler v. E.I. duPont deNemours & Co., 443 F.2d 125, 128 (6th
Cir. 1971); Dowling v. Finley Assocs., Inc., 727 A.2d 1245, 1249 n.5 (Conn.
1999); Kansas Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. v. Reimer & Koger Assocs., Inc., 941
P.2d 1321, 1333 (Kan. 1997); State v. Harrison, 61 P.3d 1104, 1109 (Wash. 2003). 
We agree.  We hold that collateral estoppel will not be invoked to bar relief where
its application would result in a manifest injustice.
In light of this holding, we must now determine whether the application of
collateral estoppel in this case creates a manifest injustice that can be determined
from the face of the record.  See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) (stating that the motion
must "affirmatively allege[] that the court records demonstrate on their face an
entitlement to . . . relief").  As noted above, McBride was sentenced as a habitual
offender to concurrent thirty-year terms of imprisonment on each of three felonies. 
-10-
Only the habitual offender sentence for the life felony of attempted first-degree
murder, however, is illegal.  In light of the concurrent sentences of the same length
McBride is serving as a habitual offender, applying collateral estoppel to his
successive motion will not result in a manifest injustice.  In fact, as the State notes,
resentencing McBride for the life felony could very well result in an increase in his
prison term.  See § 775.082, Fla. Stat. (1989).  Therefore, McBride’s claim is
barred.
Based on the foregoing, the trial court correctly denied McBride's successive
rule 3.800 motion, which raised the identical claim raised in his earlier motion, the
denial of which he did not appeal.  The prior judgment on the merits is thus final
with regard to all matters addressed by the trial court in that order.  Accordingly,
we quash the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, and answer the
certified question in the negative.
It is so ordered.
WELLS and QUINCE, JJ., and SHAW, Senior Justice, concur.
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result only with an opinion, in which ANSTEAD, C.J.,
concurs.
LEWIS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
PARIENTE, J., concurring in result only.
-11-
Although the members of this Court agree that McBride is not entitled to
sentence correction via his rule 3.800(a) motion, we diverge in our views of the law
dictating this result.  The majority rejects the doctrines of law of the case and res
judicata, and instead applies collateral estoppel, recognizing a manifest injustice
exception.  Justice Lewis considers collateral estoppel inapplicable and asserts that
res judicata is the proper legal principle, while also embracing a manifest injustice
exception.  
In my view, the reason for the struggle to make well-established legal
principles fit into the rule 3.800(a) framework is because neither doctrine is suited
to the unique jurisprudential concerns regarding illegal sentences and the
specification in rule 3.800(a) that an illegal sentence may be challenged at any time. 
Instead, I conclude that we should quash the Fifth District decision reversing the
trial court's denial of the rule 3.800(a) motion because McBride has not received an
illegal sentence remediable under the rule.
Moreover, even assuming the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars a
successive rule 3.800(a) claim based on the identical claim previously raised, it is
essential that we clarify the precise definition of the manifest injustice exception to
provide guidance to trial courts and appellate courts.  In my view, unless the trial
court could have imposed the same sentence or a more severe sentence absent the
-12-
illegality, correction of an illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is necessary to
prevent a manifest injustice.
McBride's sentence is in accord with a plea agreement and is within the
statutory maximum for a life felony.  In Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89, 103 (Fla.
2000), we reaffirmed our precedent "allowing defendants to agree through a plea
bargain to a sentence not specifically authorized by statute or rule as long as the
sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum."  Cases in which we held that an
unauthorized habitual offender sentence for a life felony could be rectified via rule
3.800(a) involved sentences imposed after trial and not as the result of a guilty or
no contest plea.  See Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2001), quashing 704
So. 2d 1068, 1069 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (defendant "tried and convicted"); Lamont
v. State, 610 So. 2d 435, 436, 439 (Fla. 1992) (defendant "found guilty";
discussion of verdict form).
I do not endorse the propositions that either res judicata, which protects the
finality of judgments, or collateral estoppel, which precludes relitigation of issues
previously resolved, bars the correction of truly illegal sentences under rule
3.800(a).  In fact, the very notion of rule 3.800(a) is that it allows the illegality of a
sentence to be raised at any time after the judgment and sentence are final—even
though the challenge to the sentence could have been raised on direct appeal.  The
-13-
fact that a trial court may have in a given case erroneously rejected a postconviction
claim of an illegal sentence brought by a defendant (who most likely is
unrepresented) should not bar a valid challenge to a truly illegal sentence in a rule
3.800 proceeding.  Indeed, past experience shows that even valid challenges to
sentences may be rejected and the denial of the motion affirmed per curiam without
opinion, especially in areas where the law is in transition.  See, e.g., Dixon v. State,
730 So. 2d 265, 268 n.4 (Fla. 1999) (noting disparate treatment of appeals from
summary denials of postconviction motions seeking retroactive application of Hale
v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)).
Application of either res judicata or collateral estoppel to rule 3.800
proceedings can also frustrate pro se litigants whose meritorious claims have been
previously derailed on procedural grounds.  For example, in Ford v. State, 667 So.
2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), the trial court denied, on res judicata grounds, a
successive rule 3.800(a) motion seeking presentence jail credit after the appeal of
the denial of the previous motion was dismissed as untimely.  To its credit, the
State acknowledged on appeal that the second motion was not barred.  Id. at 455.  
Pro se defendants who are ignorant of the fact that rule 3.800 does not authorize a
motion for rehearing often file for rehearing and then find that their appeals have
been dismissed as untimely.  See, e.g., Mincey v. State, 789 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1st
-14-
DCA 2001).  
While I would never condone the successive filing of nonmeritorious
motions, we should not bar reconsideration of a meritorious claim under rule 3.800
that the sentence is illegal.  I thus do not agree with the majority that consideration
of a successive motion that a sentence is illegal should turn on the existence of a
"manifest injustice" exception.  See majority op. at 8-10.  Rather, in my view the
mechanism for correcting illegal sentences provided by rule 3.800(a) should be
limited only by the provisos that the error appear on the face of the record and that
the sentence itself be illegal as measured by statute, rule, or case law.
As we noted in Maddox, "[t]he extraordinary provision made for remedying
illegal sentences evidences the utmost importance of correcting such errors, even at
the expense of legal principles that might preclude relief from trial court errors of
less consequence."  760 So. 2d at 101.  We recognized that "clearly the class of
errors that constitute an 'illegal' sentence that can be raised for the first time in a
postconviction motion decades after a sentence becomes final is a narrower class
of errors than those termed 'fundamental' errors that can be raised on direct appeal
even though unpreserved."  Id. at 100 n.8.  We observed in Maddox that the State
recognizes that it "has no interest in any defendant serving a sentence that is longer
than the sentence authorized by law."  Id. at 99.  Indeed, the entire justice system
-15-
certainly has an interest in ensuring that the defendant is not incarcerated longer than
is authorized by law, or under illegal terms.  The courts have an obligation to
correct any such error whenever it is brought to their attention.  
In accord with the principles espoused in Maddox, we held in Bover v.
State, 797 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2001), that a defendant who pled no contest to fifteen
third-degree felonies for a ten-year habitual offender sentence could challenge the
sentence via rule 3.800(a) on grounds that his prior offenses did not qualify him for
habitualization.  Absent qualification as a habitual offender, the maximum sentence
Bover could have received for each third-degree felony was five years in prison. 
We noted that pursuant to the recommended guidelines sentence of life, Bover
could have received fifteen consecutive five-year sentences, but we declined to
address the effect of the plea agreement on the claim that he lacked the prior
felonies necessary for habitualization because neither party raised the issue. Id. at
1251 n.7.  
In this case, however, the existence of the plea agreement should not be
ignored, because it resulted in three concurrent thirty-year habitual offender
sentences, one of which was on the attempted murder count at issue here. 
Although a habitual offender sentence was not authorized for a life felony, the
thirty-year sentence on this count is within the applicable statutory maximum of a
-16-
"term of years not exceeding 40 years" for a life felony.  § 775.082(3)(a), Fla. Stat.
(1989).  The plea agreement and resulting sentence within the statutory maximum
bring this case within the class of cases contemplated by our approval in Maddox
of agreements to sentences that are not specifically authorized by statute but do not
exceed the statutory maximum.  See 760 So. 2d at 103.  Therefore, consistent with
Maddox, I would hold that the imposition of an unauthorized habitual offender
sentence can be corrected via rule 3.800(a), except in those situations in which the
defendant has agreed through a knowing and voluntary plea to a sentence that does
not exceed the maximum penalty authorized for the offense.  
Because McBride agreed to his unauthorized sentence as part of a plea and
the thirty-year sentence does not exceed the maximum penalty authorized for a life
felony under section 775.082(3)(a), he is not entitled to relief via rule 3.800(a). 
However, because the certified question does not draw a distinction for
unauthorized habitual offender sentences imposed pursuant to plea, I do not concur
in the majority's answer to the certified question. 
ANSTEAD, C.J., concurs.
LEWIS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the result only with regard to the issues addressed by the majority
-17-
today, but I cannot accept the creative reasoning adopted by the Court without
authority in its opinion.  I must dissent from the majority's unprecedented decision
to ignore age-old precedent and rewrite Florida law to apply the doctrine of
collateral estoppel to the facts of the present case.  In my view, the majority ignores
extraordinarily well-settled facets of Florida's common law, and simply creates new
law, without any deference to, or consideration of, the prior opinions of this Court. 
Because I can find no existing authority which supports the inordinate and rash
action taken today by the Court to totally eliminate the clear legal distinction
between collateral estoppel and res judicata, while years of precedent counsel
against application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel to the instant case, I
dissent.
The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and their very separate
and distinct nature, are age old.  Indeed, each doctrine "was recognized by the
Roman law, and later by the English courts, and it is said that [each] pervades, not
only our own, but all other, systems of jurisprudence to this day, and has become a
rule of universal law."  Cragin v. Ocean & Lake Realty Co., 133 So. 569, 571 (Fla.
1931); see also Coral Realty Co. v. Peacock Holding Co., 138 So. 622, 624 (Fla.
1931).  Central to the law regarding the preclusive effects of prior judgments, and
critical in the present action, are the discrete and important differences between the
-18-
doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
As long as the doctrines have been part of Florida law, a matter has qualified
for the application of res judicata, thereby barring further litigation on a relevant
claim, only where there is "a concurrence of identity in the thing sued for, identity
of cause of action, identity of persons and parties to the action, and identity of
quality in persons for or against whom claim is made."  McGregor v. Provident
Trust Co. of Philadelphia, 162 So. 323, 328 (Fla. 1935); see also Palm AFC
Holdings, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 807 So. 2d 703, 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002);
State Dep't of Revenue v. Ferguson, 673 So. 2d 920, 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).  I
suggest that there is no question that the doctrine of res judicata applies in the
present case.  Here, McBride's initial and subsequent rule 3.800 motions contained
recitations of identical facts, raised identical claims, involved identical parties, and
were, in both substance and form, identical actions.
The pertinent, well-recognized difference between the doctrines of res
judicata and collateral estoppel is that while res judicata requires identity of the
cause of action, see McGregor, this Court has always reserved collateral estoppel
only for the situation in which a party attempts to rely upon the judgment entered or
determination made in a prior and unrelated action.  Indeed, the decisions in which
this Court has limited application of collateral estoppel to "those cases wherein the
2.  See Shearn v. Orlando Funeral Home, Inc., 88 So. 2d 591, 594 (Fla.
1956); Gordon v. Gordon, 59 So. 2d 40, 44 (Fla. 1952); Green v. State Dep't of
Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 412 So. 2d 413, 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) ("Where
the causes of action are different, the doctrine of estoppel by judgment comes into
play. . . .") (quoting 32 Fla. Jur. 2d, Judgments and Decrees, § 116); Clean Water,
Inc. v. State Dep't of Envtl. Reg., 402 So. 2d 456, 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) ("The
doctrine of res judicata bars relitigation of the same cause of action between the
same parties and collateral estoppel bars relitigation of the same issues between the
same parties in a different cause of action.").
-19-
parties are the same in the second suit as in the former action but the causes of
action are different," Yovan v. Burdine's, 81 So. 2d 555, 557 (Fla. 1955), are
myriad.  Probably the most succinct and direct expression of this principle is found
in this Court's statement in Universal Construction Co. v. City of Fort Lauderdale,
68 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1953): "Estoppel by judgment is applicable only in those cases
wherein the parties are the same in the second suit as in the former but the cause of
action is different."  Id. at 369 (emphasis supplied).  There are multiple Florida
decisions which echo this conclusion.2
Because the majority chooses to simply ignore overwhelming authority which
precludes the application of collateral estoppel to the facts of the instant case due
to the simple, obvious fact that the cause of action before this Court is absolutely
identical to that filed originally by McBride in 2000, and refuses to apply the correct
doctrine of res judicata, I dissent.  I can find absolutely no authority which
supports the course of action taken by the majority today, and the majority
-20-
provides no authority for applying collateral estoppel and obliterating the well-
defined legal distinction between this doctrine and res judicata.  With this decision
the Court rewrites the law of collateral estoppel, applying the doctrine to a
subsequent, identical action in contravention of decades of Florida precedent.  I
refuse to be part of a unilateral and baseless revision of the law which changes the
very core of the doctrine of collateral estoppel; therefore, I dissent from that
portion of the majority opinion applying collateral estoppel to the present case, and
concur only in the result.  Collateral estoppel now has the identical components
which have historically existed only for application of res judicata.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Certified
Great Public Importance 
Fifth District - Case No. 5D01-2797
(Marion County)
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Robin A. Compton and Kellie A.
Nielan, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, Florida,
for Petitioner
Beverly A. Pohl and Bruce Rogow of Bruce S. Rogow, P.A., Fort Lauderdale,
Florida,
-21-
for Respondent