EVANS REESE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Evans Reese appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence based on vindictive sentencing claims. The court affirmed, holding that vindictive sentencing claims cannot be brought under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), and the motion was time-barred under the alternative procedural vehicle.
Vindictive sentencing claims cannot be brought under Rule 3.800(a). Because Reese's conviction became final in 1996 and the motion is time-barred if considered under Rule 3.850, the trial court correctly denied the motion.
[1] A claim of vindictive sentencing cannot be raised in a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
[2] A motion raising a vindictive sentencing claim, if filed within the time limits for a motion for postconviction relief, may be treated as a motion under Florida Rule of C…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a vindictive sentencing claim cannot be brought by a motion to correct illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a)”
Establishes the core holding that vindictive sentencing claims require a different procedural vehicle than Rule 3.800(a)
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReese was convicted of armed robbery, and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in 1996. Years later, he filed a motion to correct illegal sent…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Finality Of Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
Evans Reese appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm.
Defendant-appellant was convicted of armed robbery. The conviction was affirmed in 1996. See Reese v. State, 683 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
By motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), the defendant argues that he was vindictively sentenced. The trial court correctly denied the motion because a vindictive sentencing claim cannot be brought by a motion to correct illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a). Wright v. State, 891 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Valencia v. State, 645 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); see also Boyd v. State, 880 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 888 So. 2d 621 (Fla.2004).
We comment briefly on two recent cases from this court which addressed vindictive sentencing claims which had been brought under Rule 3.800(a). Both cases are distinguishable.
In Ortiz v. State, 884 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), this court issued an opinion denying a claim of vindictive sentencing which had been brought under Rule 3.800(a). There is no indication that any procedural objection was raised to the use of Rule 3.800(a) in that case, and the procedural issue was not discussed in the Ortiz opinion.
In Smith v. State, 842 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), this court issued an opinion which granted relief on a vindictive sentencing claim which had been brought under Rule 3.800(a). Again, there is no indication that any procedural objection was raised to the use of Rule 3.800(a) in that case, and the panel opinion did not discuss the procedural issue. A review of this court’s file in Smith indicates that the Rule 3.800(a) motion was filed within the two-year time limit for a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Since the Rule 3.800(a) motion could have been treated as a timely Rule 3.850 motion, the procedural error had no practical significance in that case.
In this case the defendant’s conviction became final on direct appeal in 1996. Since under this court’s precedent the motion cannot be entertained under Rule 3.800(a), and since the motion is time-barred if considered under Rule 3.850, it follows that affirmance is in order here.
We certify direct conflict with Johnson v. State, 877 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). See Wright v. State, 891 So. 2d at 618.
Affirmed; direct conflict certified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dellofano v. State, 946 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…ofano’s motion was filed under oath and within the deadline for filing a rule 3.850 motion. Because Dellofano’s motion in this case met the procedural requirements of rule 3.850, it should have been treated as such anyway. See, e.g., Reese v. State, 896 So. 2d 807, 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Gill v. State, 829 So. 2d 299, 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“Where a movant files a properly pleaded claim but incorrectly styles the postconviction motion in which it was raised, the trial court must treat the claim as if it had…
-
Bouno v. State, 900 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…otion to correct illegal sentence wherein he alleges that he was the victim of a vindictive sentence. The trial court denied the motion as not being cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We agree and affirm.1 Reese v. State, 896 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Boyd v. State, 880 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), review denied, 888 So. 2d 621 (Fla.2004). In concluding as we have, we have not overlooked our recent opinion in Johnson v. State, 877 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), wherein we…
-
Morales v. State, 909 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…ld that a vindictive sentencing claim cannot be [*479] brought by a motion to correct illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a). See Gonzalez v. State, 897 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Taylor v. State, 897 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Reese v. State, 896 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Luma v. State, 895 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Satahoo v. State, 895 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Galindez v. State, 892 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Wright v. State, 891 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Valencia v. State…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Boyd v. State, 880 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Johnson v. State, 877 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Boyd v. State, 888 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2004)
- Lacce Wright v. State, 891 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Valencia v. State, 645 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Smith v. State, 842 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Romano v. E. Fin. Fed. Credit Union, 842 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Ortiz v. State, 884 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Evans Reese v. State, 683 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Miller v. State, 683 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)