Legal Opinion

Hopping v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 4, 1996No. 95-1344PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOANOS, Judge.

This is an appeal from the denial of appellant’s rule 3.800 motion for post-conviction relief. One of the issues raised in the motion was whether appellant’s 1992 resentencing, which increased his sentence in response to his 1992 rule 3.800 motion for post-conviction relief, but did not exceed the statutory maximum, is an illegal sentence. We requested a response from the State on this issue, specifically on the effect of Troupe v. Rowe, 283 So.2d 857 (Fla.1973) (prohibiting increasing a legal sentence once it has commenced on double jeopardy grounds).

Citing the narrow…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1995
  3. State v. CallawaySupreme Court of Florida · 1995
  4. Troupe v. RoweSupreme Court of Florida · 1973
  5. State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Florida · 1986

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Blakley v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1999
  2. Hopping v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1998
  3. Skidmore v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API