WALTER HALL
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.
The appellate court affirmed a lower court's denial of a resentencing motion. The appellant argued that the trial court had already granted resentencing by appointing counsel, but the appellate court found this appointment was not a final order granting resentencing.
No, the order appointing counsel for resentencing was not a final order granting resentencing. Therefore, the trial court could still deny the motion based on subsequent controlling precedent.
[1] An order appointing counsel to a postconviction movant for resentencing is not a final order on the postconviction motion unless it vacates the previously-imposed sentenc…
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“holding that a trial court’s order appointing counsel to a postconviction movant for a postconviction claim that resentencing was required was not a final order on the postconviction motion granting resentencing or the functional equivalent of an order granting resentencing”
Establishes the court's precedent regarding the nature of orders appointing counsel for resentencing.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalter Hall sought resentencing based on a Supreme Court ruling. The trial court denied his motion, citing subsequent Florida Supreme Court decisions …
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 Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
WINOKUR, J.
Walter Hall sought resentencing, arguing that his sentence violated Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), under the authority of Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016). The court denied the motion, on the ground that the Florida Supreme Court overruled Atwell in State v. Michel, 257 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 2018), and Franklin v. State, 258 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 2018). On appeal, Hall asserts that the trial court could not deny his motion because it had already granted resentencing, prior to the Michel and Franklin decisions, by its order appointing counsel to him for resentencing. We reject Hall’s claim. See Smith v. State, 299 So. 3d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (holding that a trial court’s order appointing counsel to a postconviction movant for a postconviction claim that resentencing was required was not a final order on the postconviction motion granting resentencing or the functional equivalent of an order granting resentencing); see also Malone v. State, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1842 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 17, 2021) (same). Even if we had not already ruled on this matter, we note that the Florida Supreme Court, in a similar situation, held that an order that vacates a sentence and orders new sentencing proceedings is a final order, even before the resentencing occurs. State v. Jackson, 306 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 2020). Because the order at issue here did not vacate the previously-imposed sentence, it did not constitute a final order granting the postconviction motion.* AFFIRMED. NORDBY and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. State, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012)
- Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016)
- State v. Budry Michel, 257 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 2018)
- Franklin v. State, 258 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 2018)
- Smith v. State, 306 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)
- Hall v. State, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)