Rogers v. State

Full title: Rodney Rogers, Appellant, v. The State of Florida, Appellee.

Court: Florida Court of Appeals, Third District

Date published: Sep 8, 2021

No. 3D21-678 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sep. 8, 2021)

Opinion

3D21-678

09-08-2021

Rodney Rogers, Appellant, v. The State of Florida, Appellee.

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

PER CURIAM

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County Lower Tribunal No. F89-5623B, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge.

Robert F. Dunlap, P.A., and Robert F. Dunlap, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM

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").