STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
FREDERICK CHARLES HALL, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant cannot collaterally attack a guidelines departure sentence via Rule 3.850 motion based on a subsequently issued Supreme Court decision changing the legal construction of sentencing statutes, and quashed the First District's opinion permitting such attack.
A defendant is not permitted to collaterally attack a guidelines departure sentence by Rule 3.850 motion on the basis that the sole reason for departure, habitual offender status, became invalid under a subsequently issued Supreme Court decision.
[1] A defendant cannot use a Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief to collaterally attack a guidelines departure sentence based on a subsequently issued appellate deci…
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 intelligenceHall received a guidelines departure sentence based on his status as a habitual offender, which was valid under First District precedent at the time o…
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 Guidelines Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Justice.
Pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(5) of the Florida Constitution, we review Hall v. State, 511 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified to us the following question as an issue of great public importance:
IS APPELLANT PERMITTED TO COLLATERALLY ATTACK THE LEGALITY OF HIS GUIDELINES DEPARTURE SENTENCE BY RULE 3.850 MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF ON THE BASIS THAT THE SOLE REASON FOR DEPARTURE, HIS STATUS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER, ALTHOUGH VALID UNDER A LOWER APPELLATE COURT DECISION AT THE TIME IMPOSED, IS INVALID UNDER A SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED SUPREME COURT DECISION ENUNCIATING A DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION OF THE SENTENCING STATUTES AND SENTENCING GUIDELINES RULE?
Id. at 1044.
In McCuiston v. State, 534 So. 2d 1144 (Fla.1988), issued contemporaneously herewith, we disapproved the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in Hall, predicated as it was on the rationale of our original opinion in Bass v. State, 12 F.L.W. 289 (Fla. June 11, 1987), which was withdrawn on rehearing, 530 So. 2d 282 (Fla.1988). Therefore, we answer the certified question in the negative and quash the opinion below.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, SHAW, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (44 total)
-
Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)…departure sentences. I point out, however, that departure sentences which have become final that were reimposed after remand for initially failing to provide written statements will not be subject to [*557] collateral attack. See McCuiston v. State, 534 So. 2d 1144 (Fla.1988). SHAW, J., concurs.…
-
State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)…r, did not address the principles of Witt, and this caused some confusion among the courts regarding the proper standard for determining whether a change in law should be retroactively applied. We addressed this confusion in both McCuiston v. State, 534 So. 2d 1144 (Fla.1988), and State v. Glenn, 558 So. 2d 4 (Fla.1990), and stated that Witt is “the controlling case by which to determine whether a change in deci-sional law should be applied retroactively.” Glenn, 558 So. 2d at 7. We reaffirm our decisions in M…
-
Johnson v. State, 904 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 2005)…7 So. 2d at 929 n. 25. As the majority concedes, this Court has long utilized the Witt test for determining when important changes in decisional law should be applied retroactively. See State v. Glenn, 558 So. 2d 4, 6 (Fla.1990); McCuiston v. State, 534 So. 2d 1144, 1146 (Fla.1988). As noted above, however, while we have applied numerous important decisions retroactively under this analysis, the majority has chosen to ignore those decisions; it does not make even the slightest attempt to distinguish the signi…
Previewing 3 of 44 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Hall, 534 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 1988)
- Bass v. State, 530 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1988)
- Hall v. State, 511 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)