DARIUS T. CHANEY
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Darius T. Chaney appealed a circuit court's denial of his motion challenging his convictions on double jeopardy grounds. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that double jeopardy challenges to convictions are not cognizable in post-conviction motions under Florida law.
Double jeopardy challenges to a defendant's convictions are not cognizable in post-conviction motions such as those brought under Florida Rule 3.800(a) or related rules for correcting illegal sentences. Such challenges must be raised through other appropriate legal mechanisms.
[1] A double jeopardy challenge to a defendant's convictions is not cognizable in a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), as s…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Double jeopardy challenges to a defendant's convictions are not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion.”
Establishes that double jeopardy arguments cannot be raised in the specific post-conviction motion procedure at issue
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChaney was convicted in the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County and filed a motion—likely under Florida Rule 3.800(a) or similar post-conviction relie…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 3.800(A) Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 8, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D26-0057 Lower Tribunal No. F16-25255
Darius T. Chaney, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141 (b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Miguel M. de la O, Judge.
Darius T. Chaney, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Senior Assistant Attorney General for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See George v. State, 213 So. 3d 966, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) ("Double jeopardy challenges to a defendant's convictions are not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion."); Salazar v. State, 675 So. 2d 654, 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) ("The double jeopardy argument Salazar advances in this case is a challenge to his convictions, not sentences, and thus is not cognizable under the rule regarding motions to correct illegal sentences.").
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Salazar v. State, 675 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- George v. State, 213 So. 3d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)