Legal Opinion
Satahoo v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided February 23, 2005No. 3D04-1048PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Per curiam
We affirm the denial of the defendant’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) finding that his claim of vindictive sentencing cannot be raised in a motion to correct illegal sentence. Wright v. State, 891 So.2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Boyd v. State, 880 So.2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). We also certify direct conflict with Johnson v. State, 877 So.2d 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Affirmed; direct conflict certified.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Boyd v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2004
- Johnson v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2004
- Wright v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
3Cited by2 opinions
- Davis v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
- Morales v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005