HERBERT GOODMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2008-06-11
No. 3D08-1100
Before SHEPHERD, CORTIÑAS, and SALTER, JJ.
984 So. 2d 607 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2008) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Based on our review of a prior motion for postconviction relief filed by the defendant, Goodman v. State, 973 So. 2d 454, 2007 WL 4249866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (table) (affirming the lower court’s summary denial of postconviction relief), we find that the defendant’s current motion is successive, and that the defendant is not entitled to further relief. See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla.2003); Pleasure v. State, 931 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that a defendant is not entitled to successive review of an issue already decided against him on its merits). We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Nelson v. State, 992 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Goodman v. State, 984 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).…
  • British Moss v. State, 994 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
    …e is illegal on the basis of Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). This claim has already been litigated, denied, and affirmed on appeal. See Moss v. State, 937 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). We will not consider it again. See Goodman v. State, 984 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Moss also contends that because his judgment and sentence were pending when the United States Supreme Court decided Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), he is entitled to relief. We disag…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw