RONNIE L. BANNISTER, 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 appellate court affirmed the denial of a post-conviction relief motion, holding that the motion was filed too late. The court found that the two-year statute of limitations for filing such motions barred the claim, even though the prior conviction was used to enhance a current sentence.
Yes, the two-year statute of limitations bars the post-conviction relief motion. The court held that the prior conviction's use for sentence enhancement does not create a fourth exception to the limitations period.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief must be filed within two years after the judgment and sentence became final, unless an exception applies.
[2] Prisoners whose judgments and sentences became final prior to January 1, 1985, were given until January 1, 1987, to file their motions for post-conviction relief.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Rule 3.850 requires that motions for post-conviction relief be filed within two years after the judgment and sentence became final.”
Establishes the general rule for the timeliness of post-conviction relief motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRonnie L. Bannister pleaded guilty in 1976 to dealing in stolen property and was sentenced. He did not appeal this conviction. Sixteen years later, he…
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 Rule 3.850 Motion For Post-Conviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Ronnie L. Bannister appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. He filed his motion on July 30, 1992, and alleged that his 1976 conviction for dealing in stolen property should be set aside since his guilty plea was not made knowingly with a full understanding of his waiver of constitutional rights. Although he never appealed that judgment and the four-year sentence imposed, he now understands the importance of his prior conviction since it was used lately to enhance a sentence that he is now serving.
Rule 3.850 requires that motions for post-conviction relief be filed within two years after the judgment and sentence became final. Prisoners whose judgments and sentences became final prior to January 1, 1985, were given until January 1, 1987, to file their motions. There are three exceptions to the limitations period: (1) a claim of illegal sentence; (2) a claim of newly discovered evidence; (3) a claim based on a fundamental change in the law held to apply retroactively. See Bundy v. State, 538 So. 2d 445 (Fla.1989). Although Bannister acknowledges that his sentence ended in 1980, Florida courts have held that the custody requirement of Rule 3.850 is met if a defendant’s prior judgment and completed sentence is used to enhance a current sentence. See, e.g., Wall v. State, 525 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Shell v. State, 501 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). However, none of the opinions in those cases indicate that the 3.850 motions were filed after the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations, and we will not create a fourth exception to the rule by allowing a prior conviction and sentence to be attacked beyond the two-year period when they have been used to enhance a current sentence.
The trial court properly denied Bannister’s 3.850 motion filed more than sixteen years after his judgment and sentence became final, since it was barred by the two-year limitation period.
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…d by due diligence within the two year time period, or unless a fundamental constitutional right asserted was not established until the two year time period had run, and that right has been held to apply retroactively. See, e.g., Bannister v. State, 606 So. 2d 1247, 1248 (Fla 5th DCA 1992). There is not a shred of a suggestion Isley could allege such an exception to the two year time limit, nor has he attempted to do so. He will not be permitted to escape the two year limit by labeling this or any other pleadi…
-
Bates v. State, 887 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2004)…n custody. See Richardson v. State, 546 So. 2d 1037 (Fla.1989). But if a defendant’s prior conviction is used to enhance a current sentence, the defendant is considered to be in custody for purposes of post-conviction relief. See Bannister v. State, 606 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). See also Duenas v. State, 636 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); McArthur v. State, 597 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Since Mr. Howarth is challenging the validity of his 1987 convictions in an effort to avoid enhancement of his c…
-
Howarth v. State, 673 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…custody. See Richardson v. State, 546 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1989). But if a defendant’s prior conviction is used to enhance a current sentence, the defendant is considered to be in custody for purposes of post-conviction relief. See Bannister v. State, 606 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). See also Dueñas v. State, 636 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); McArthur v. State, 597 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Since Mr. Howarth is challenging the validity of his 1987 convictions in an effort to avoid enhancement of his c…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bundy v. State, 538 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 1989)
- Wall v. State, 525 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Edmond Boris Shell v. State, 501 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)