PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Fuston v. State, 764 So.2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that “a defendant is not entitled to successive review on a rule 3.800(a) motion of a specific issue which has already been decided against him.”); Swain v. State, 911 So.2d 140, 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding that a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue decided against him in an earlier post-conviction proceeding even if the question concerns the legality of his sentence).