RANGEL v. STATE, 101 So.3d 911 (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals of Florida
Number: inflco20121121187
Visitors: 13
Filed: Nov. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Nov. 21, 2012
Summary: PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Our affirmance is without prejudice to Appellant raising his claims in a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. Any such motion filed by Appellant shall not be considered successive so long as Appellant does not revisit the issue that was the subject of the trial court's June 11, 2012 order. MAY, C.J., POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Our affirmance is without prejudice to Appellant raising his claims in a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. Any such motion filed by Appellant shall not be considered successive so long as Appellant does not revisit the issue that was the subject of the trial court's June 11, 2012 order.
MAY, C.J., POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Source: Leagle
