Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 26, 2023.
________________
No. 3D23-216
Lower Tribunal No. F99-1602C
________________
Joseph Seme,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from
the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Teresa Pooler, Judge.
Joseph Seme, in proper person.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before MILLER, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
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
2
in the court’s opinion or not.”); Seme v. State,
327 So. 3d 1221, 1221 (Fla.
3d DCA 2021).
3
