Opinion
No. 1D18-4739
03-11-2020
Excellus O. HYLAND, Appellant, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Appellee.
Excellus O. Hyland, pro se, Appellant. Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, and Daniel R. Burke, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Excellus O. Hyland, pro se, Appellant.
Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, and Daniel R. Burke, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Per Curiam.
Excellus Hyland petitioned the lower court for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his imprisonment. He now appeals the lower court's denial of his petition. We affirm.
Mr. Hyland argues that he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because his sentence has already been completed and that later amendments to the sentence entered by the trial court are "void and patently illegal." We note that Mr. Hyland has raised identical claims in a prior petition for writ of habeas corpus, and this Court previously addressed and rejected the arguments. See Hyland v. State, 179 So. 3d 501, 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) ( Hyland I ). Because Mr. Hyland's arguments have been previously adjudicated in this Court, they are precluded from being reconsidered here, absent exceptional circumstances. See Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano , 801 So. 2d 101, 105-06 (Fla. 2001) ; Greene v. Massey , 384 So. 2d 24, 28 (Fla. 1980) ("All points of law which have been adjudicated become the law of the case and are, except in exceptional circumstances, no longer open for discussion or consideration in subsequent proceedings in the case."); James v. State , 275 So. 3d 251, 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) ("The claim raised in the current motion is procedurally barred because James unsuccessfully raised the same claim—and variations of it—on direct appeal and in three prior rule 3.800(a) cases that were affirmed on appeal.").
It is not clear why Mr. Hyland's petition was not deemed precluded and dismissed below. That said, the lower court's conclusions that he is legally in custody pursuant to the underlying sentence and that his challenges to the sentencing amendments were improperly brought outside the sentencing court are consistent with Hyland I . Therefore, we affirm. Additionally, as the current appeal re-raises identical arguments to those addressed in Hyland I , it is frivolous. See id. Mr. Hyland is warned that further frivolous filings in this Court may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the possibility of prohibition on pro se filing.
AFFIRMED .
Lewis, Bilbrey, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.