Joseph Seme, Appellant, v. The State of Florida, Appellee. (2023)

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

We deny Joseph Seme's motion for rehearing, but withdraw our previous opinion, and substitute the following opinion in its stead.

Affirmed. See Raines v. State, 14 So. 3d 244, 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“At least as a general rule, a sentence cannot be challenged after it has been fully served and has expired because any sentencing issue is moot thereafter.”); Fillmore v. State, 970 So. 2d 452, 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (finding the defendant's motion challenging his mandatory minimum sentence was not moot despite his having fully served that minimum sentence because the defendant “could still benefit from elimination of the mandatory minimum as to gain time”); Jackson v. State, 96 So. 3d 980, 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (finding that a defendant “serving a life sentence, and not a term of years,” is not entitled to the benefit of gain time); Wemett v. State, 567 So. 2d 882, 884 (Fla. 1990) (noting that the sentencing guidelines did not allow the defendant “to benefit from gain-time while serving a life sentence”); see also Mitzenmacher v. Mitzenmacher, 656 So. 2d 178, 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“A per curiam decision of the appellate court is the law of the case between the same parties on the same issues and facts, and determines all issues necessarily involved in the appeal, whether mentioned in the court's opinion or not.”); Seme v. State, 327 So. 3d 1221, 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

PER CURIAM.