Luma v. State
Luma v. State
895 So. 2d 1202; 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 2025; 2005 WL 418705
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Luma v. State
Opinion of the Court
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.