Court Opinion

ID: 4867470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-26 02:25:02.492119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:12.064779
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Fuston v. State, 764 So.2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that “a defendant is not entitled to successive review on a rule 3.800(a) motion of a specific issue which has already been decided against him.”); Swain v. State, 911 So.2d 140, 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding that a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue decided against him in an earlier post-conviction proceeding even if the question concerns the legality of his sentence).