LINDSEY ARDLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that changes in sentencing guidelines law, as established in Hendrix and Albritton, do not apply retroactively to cases seeking post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850, absent major constitutional changes.
Ardley was convicted of armed robbery and his sentence was affirmed. Subsequently, changes in sentencing guidelines law occurred. Ardley sought post-c…
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 Retroactive Application Of Decisional Law cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Ardley appeals from an order which denied his motion for post-conviction relief sought pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. We affirm.
Ardley was convicted of armed robbery with a firearm and his sentence, a departure from the presumptive guidelines range, was per curiam affirmed in Ardley v. State, 454 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Since that time a change in sentencing guidelines law has occurred per Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla.1985), and Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985). Ardley contends these recent Florida Supreme Court rulings apply directly to his case and require a reversal of his sentence.
In Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla.1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 1067, 101 S.Ct. 796, 66 L.Ed.2d 612 (1980), the Supreme Court was faced with a question similar to that presented herein, namely: When does a change in decisional law mandate a reversal of a once valid conviction and sentence. This issue was presented in Witt in the context of a motion for post-conviction relief from a sentence of death. The court opined that the importance of finality in the criminal justice system cannot be understated and, therefore, only major constitutional changes of law will be cognizable in capital cases under Rule 3.850. The Witt court then went on to conclude that evolutionary refinements in the criminal law, affording new or different standards for the admissibility of evidence, for procedural fairness, for proportionality review of capital cases, and for other like matters are not retroactively cognizable in post-conviction proceedings. 387 So. 2d at 929.
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Ard-ley’s Rule 3.850 petition.
WIGGINTON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. State, 511 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…cognized as valid under lower appellate decisions is not a fundamental change of law warranting rule 3.850 post-conviction relief for those persons whose sentences have become final. Kiser v. State, 505 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Ardley v. State, 491 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). If we appplied the rule of these cases in the present case, we would be required to hold that Hall is precluded from collaterally attacking the validity of his departure sentence based on the supreme court’s decision in Whitehea…
-
Rowe v. State, 496 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…considering the issue. Chaplin v. State, 473 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Furthermore, decisions which effect change in the application of the sentencing guidelines are not retroactively cognizable in post-conviction proceedings. Ardley v. State, 491 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). At the time Rowe was sentenced, the failure to provide written reasons for departure did not necessarily constitute reversible error. See, e.g., Beal v. State, 478 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). [*859] The two remaining guidelin…
-
McCUISTON v. State, 507 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…egrity of the original trial proceeding’ will be grounds for allowing post-conviction relief. 387 So. 2d at 929. The disapproval of a previously valid reason for departure from the sentencing guidelines is not such a change. Ardley v. [*1188] State, 491 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Kiser at 9. We see no reason to treat McCui-ston any differently. We hold that the invalidation of habitual offender status as a reason for departure from the sentencing guidelines is not such a fundamental or constitutional l…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hendrix v. State, 475 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1985)
- Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980)
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Adams v. Peat, 449 U.S. 1067 (U.S. 1980)
- Jarrett v. Jarrett, 449 U.S. 1067 (U.S. 1980)
- Ardley v. State, 454 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Sondi K. Kartman v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 454 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)