NORMAN EDWARD DEAN, 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.
Norman Edward Dean appeals the denial of his motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence, claiming he received multiple consecutive sentences for what constituted a single criminal offense. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that Rule 3.800(a) motions address only whether a sentence is authorized by law, not whether proper procedures were followed in imposing it, and further noting that Dean was likely time-barred from seeking postconviction relief under Rule 3.850.
The appellate court affirmed the denial of Dean's motion, holding that Rule 3.800(a) is limited to cases where a sentence imposes a penalty not authorized by law and does not address procedural defects in sentencing. Additionally, because Dean's sentences became final more than two years before he filed his motion, he would be time-barred from seeking postconviction relief under Rule 3.850.
[1] A motion to correct an illegally imposed sentence under Rule 3.800(a) is intended to provide relief only for sentences that impose a penalty not authorized by law, not to…
[2] Whether consecutive sentences arise from a single criminal episode is a factual issue that typically requires an evidentiary hearing and must be resolved under Rule 3.850…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 3.800(a) is intended to provide relief for a narrow category of cases in which the sentence imposes a penalty that is simply not authorized by law. It is concerned primarily with whether the terms and conditions of the punishment for a particular offense are permissible as a matter of law.”
Establishes the limited scope of Rule 3.800(a) as addressing only substantive illegality of sentences, not procedural defects.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDean received four consecutive sentences for possession of cannabis, possession of drug paraphernalia, receiving and concealing stolen property, and f…
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 Time Limitations For Postconviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.
Norman Edward Dean appeals from a summary denial of his motion to correct an illegally imposed sentence. Dean alleged in his motion that he received four consecutive sentences for the crimes of possession of cannabis, possession of drug paraphernalia, receiving and concealing stolen property, and felon in possession of a firearm. These were guideline sentences rather than habitual offender sentences. Dean quotes in his motion from a statement allegedly made by the assistant state attorney concerning the factual basis of the crimes which Dean alleges was provided to the trial court at Dean’s sentencing hearing. Dean thereafter argues that the trial court’s imposition of multiple consecutive sentences for a single criminal offense was illegal.
Based upon this court’s recent decisions, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Dean’s motion to correct an illegally imposed sentence. This court has stated:
Rule 3.800(a) is intended to provide relief for a narrow category of cases in which the sentence imposes a penalty that is simply not authorized by law. It is concerned primarily with whether the terms and conditions of the punishment for a particular offense are permissible as a matter of law. It is not a vehicle designed to re-examine whether the procedure employed to impose the punishment comported with statutory law and due process.
Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), review denied, 613 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1992). Even more recently this court stated:
As a general rule, a postconviction issue that requires an evidentiary hearing must be resolved under rule 3.850. Whether a prisoner’s consecutive sentences arise from a single criminal episode is not a pure question of law. Resolution of this issue depends upon factual evidence involving the times, places, and circumstances of the offenses.
Callaway v. State, 642 So. 2d 636, 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (citations omitted).
Based upon the foregoing cases, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Dean’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. Ordinarily this affirmance would be without prejudice for Dean to file a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Rule 3.850(b), however, provides that a court shall not consider a motion filed more than two years after the judgment and sentence become final. Dean has alleged that he entered his pleas of guilty to these crimes in 1976. It appears from all the records we have available to us that Dean’s judgment and sentences for these crimes have been final for more than two years. Dean, therefore, would be precluded from seeking such relief.
Affirmed.
PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 687 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…an order denying the motion for postconviction relief because it was untimely filed. This was error. A motion for postconviction relief may be filed within two years after the judgment and sentence become final. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850; Dean v. State, 644 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), review denied, 654 So. 2d 918 (Fla.1995). If the motion is essentially a motion to set aside the plea and no previous appeal has been filed, the judgment and sentence become final when the 30-day period for filing the appeal has…
-
Holloway v. State, 160 So. 3d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…been demonstrated. We address each of these findings below. Holloway’s motion is clearly untimely. A defendant has two years from the date his judgment and sentence become final to file a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. Dean v. State, 644 So. 2d 122, 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Holloway was convicted on April 27, 1988, and he did not file his motion until November 25, 2013, well outside the two-year window. Additionally, the evidence Holloway claims was newly discovered was in fact known to Hollow…
-
McKENZIE v. State, 650 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Poole v. State, 20 Fla.L.Weekly D43,—So. 2d—[1994 WL 706622] (Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 21,1994); Stocker v. State, 646 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Dean v. State, 644 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Callaway v. State, 642 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Nowlin v. State, 639 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Callaway v. State, 642 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)