NATHANIEL STEPHENS, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1985-11-05

No. 85-2089

Before HUBBART, BASKIN and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

478 So. 2d 419 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1985) Positive Treatment

Cited by 4 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that a successive motion for post-conviction relief is appropriate when it states new legal grounds or raises a fundamental error, such as an unlawful sentence, which can be raised for the first time.

Facts & Procedural History

Nathaniel Stephens appealed the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, which challenged the legality of his life sentence for armed …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Unlawful Sentence Successive Motions Fundamental Error Postconviction Relief

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unlawful Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Nathaniel Stephens appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. His motion challenges the legality of the life sentence imposed by the trial court following a jury verdict finding Stephens guilty of armed robbery without a firearm. Stephens maintains that he should receive a sentence no greater than the maximum allowed by law for an unarmed robbery, rather than the sentence he received for armed robbery.

The trial court summarily denied Stephen’s motion on the ground that the issue should have been raised in the motion Stephens filed subsequent to the affirmance of his conviction in Stephens v. State, 445 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We affirmed the summary denial of the prior motion in Stephens v. State, 467 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

We reverse the trial court’s summary denial of Stephen’s second motion. Successive 3.850 motions are appropriate when they state substantially new legal grounds. McCrae v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388 (Fla.1983); Nova v. State, 439 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev’d on other grounds, 462 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Furthermore, a fundamental error, such as the imposition of an unlawful sentence, may be raised for the first time in a Rule 3.850 motion notwithstanding the fact that it could have been raised on direct appeal. Nova, 439 So. 2d at 261; Reynolds v. State, 429 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). The record before us does not show conclusively that Stephens is entitled to no relief. Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(g). By failing to consider the merits of Stephen’s claim, the trial court made no determination as to whether Stephen’s conviction was for an armed robbery or for an unarmed robbery. We therefore reverse and remand the cause for an evidentiary hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Vause v. State, 502 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)

…a. 5th DCA 1984). Based on the foregoing cases and the general rule that fundamental errors may be raised for the first time in a Rule 3.850 motion, notwithstanding the fact that the error could have been raised on direct appeal, Stephens v. State, 478 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), we reverse the trial court's denial of Vause’s Rule 3.850 motion. Reversed and remanded. THOMPSON, J., concurs. BOOTH, C.J., dissents without opinion.…
La Marca v. State, 547 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)

…. State, 496 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). However, the trial court erred in ruling that defendant may not file additional 3.850 motions.2 Aikens v. State, 488 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 496 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1986); Stephens v. State, 478 So. 2d 419, 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850 (successive motion may be dismissed where it fails to allege new or different grounds and prior determination was on the merits, or if new or different grounds are alleged and judge finds that failure to…

Authorities Cited

McCRAE v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 1983)
Nova v. State, 439 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
Reynolds v. State, 429 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
Miami Elevator Co. v. LA Concha Motor INN, 462 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
State v. Nova, 462 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
Stephens v. State, 445 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
State v. Vladimiro Derkac, 445 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw