JONATHAN M. ROLLINS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
When a postconviction motion is filed under an improper procedural rule but within the time limits of the correct rule, the trial court must strike it as facially insufficient under the correct rule and allow the movant an opportunity to amend rather than summarily denying it.
[1] When a postconviction motion is filed under an improper procedural rule but within the time limits of the correct rule, the trial court must strike the motion as facially…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[N]o cause shall be dismissed because an improper remedy has been sought.”
Florida Constitution, Article V, § 2(a), cited by the court to support the requirement that causes not be dismissed merely because an improper remedy was used.
Rollins filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence claiming his prior convictions did not qualify him for a Habitual Felony Offender sentence, but …
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 Habitual Felony Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
JONATHAN M. ROLLINS,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-3692
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed June 26, 2020
3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Lisa D. Herndon, Judge.
Jonathan M. Rollins, Crawfordville, pro se.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchison Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Jonathan Rollins, challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for further proceedings. In his motion, Rollins claimed that his prior convictions did not qualify him for a Habitual Felony Offender (HFO) sentence. The postconviction court denied the motion, relying on Rollins’s stipulation that he qualified as an HFO when he entered his plea to
2 the underlying charges. In light of this stipulation, the postconviction court properly observed that an evidentiary hearing would be required to adjudicate the claim. See White v. State, 60 So. 3d 1101, 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Thus, Rollins’s claim was not cognizable under rule 3.800(a) and he should have sought relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See id.
Though properly recognizing Rollins’s use of an improper vehicle to raise his claim, the postconviction court erred by simply dismissing the motion. Because the motion was filed within the time limits allowed by rule 3.850, the court should have treated it as a facially insufficient rule 3.850 motion, struck it as such, and given Rollins an opportunity to amend. See Duncan v. State, 259 So. 3d 926, 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018); see also Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. (“[N]o cause shall be dismissed because an improper remedy has been sought.”). Accordingly, we reverse the order summarily denying Rollins’s motion. Upon remand, Rollins’s motion shall be stricken as facially insufficient under rule 3.850, and he shall be allowed sixty days to amend, provided that he can do so in good faith. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2); Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754, 761 (Fla. 2007).
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
ORFINGER, COHEN, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Sharpe v. State, 60 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Duncan v. State, 259 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)