Court Opinion

ID: 9389825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 15:04:14.007959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.438190
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                             State of Florida

                       Opinion filed April 26, 2023.
                          ________________

                            No. 3D23-216
                     Lower Tribunal No. F99-1602C
                         ________________

                            Joseph Seme,
                                Appellant,

                                    vs.

                        The State of Florida,
                                Appellee.

      An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from
the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Teresa Pooler, Judge.

     Joseph Seme, in proper person.

     Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before MILLER, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
                      ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

      We deny Joseph Seme’s motion for rehearing, but withdraw our

previous opinion, and substitute the following opinion in its stead.

      Affirmed. See Raines v. State, 14 So. 3d 244, 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)

(“At least as a general rule, a sentence cannot be challenged after it has

been fully served and has expired because any sentencing issue is moot

thereafter.”); Fillmore v. State, 970 So. 2d 452, 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)

(finding the defendant’s motion challenging his mandatory minimum

sentence was not moot despite his having fully served that minimum

sentence because the defendant “could still benefit from elimination of the

mandatory minimum as to gain time”); Jackson v. State, 96 So. 3d 980, 981

(Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (finding that a defendant “serving a life sentence, and

not a term of years,” is not entitled to the benefit of gain time); Wemett v.

State, 567 So. 2d 882, 884 (Fla. 1990) (noting that the sentencing guidelines

did not allow the defendant “to benefit from gain-time while serving a life

sentence”); see also Mitzenmacher v. Mitzenmacher, 656 So. 2d 178, 179

(Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“A per curiam decision of the appellate court is the law

of the case between the same parties on the same issues and facts, and

determines all issues necessarily involved in the appeal, whether mentioned

                                      2
in the court’s opinion or not.”); Seme v. State, 327 So. 3d 1221, 1221 (Fla.

3d DCA 2021).

                                     3