ROGERS v. STATE (2021)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Rodney ROGERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D21-678

Decided: September 08, 2021

Before EMAS, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

Robert F. Dunlap, P.A., and Robert F. Dunlap, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Affirmed. See Florida Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001) (holding: “The doctrine of the law of the case requires that questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings”); State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003) (holding collateral estoppel/issue preclusion prevents identical parties from relitigating the same issues that have already been decided); Rogers v. State, 963 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (table) (affirming order denying defendant's 2006 motion to correct illegal sentence, which raised the same issue raised in the instant appeal). See also State v. Harris, 129 So. 3d 1166, 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (holding “Florida law is clear that when the trial judge's oral pronouncement of a sentence is ambiguous, but the judge's intention is discernible from the record, the proper sentence is what the judge intended the sentence to be”).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network