JACK LESTER WATTS, 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.
Jack Lester Watts appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), arguing his consecutive habitual offender sentences were improper under the newly decided case of Hale v. State. The court affirmed the denial but without prejudice, holding that Watts must raise the issue in a timely motion under rule 3.850 instead.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to correct sentence filed under rule 3.800(a), but without prejudice to Watts filing a timely motion under rule 3.850. The court held that although Hale established a new legal principle unavailable in 1991, the proper procedure for raising this issue is through a sworn motion under rule 3.850 within a two-year window from the Hale decision.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge habitual offender sentencing based on a change in the law th…
[2] Challenges to habitual offender sentencing based on a change in controlling law must be raised in a sworn motion under rule 3.850 within the time frame established by the…
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“Until Hale was issued on October 14, 1993, the law of this district permitted consecutive habitual offender sentencing for offenses committed during a single criminal episode.”
Establishes that Watts's claim rested on a new legal development that did not exist when he was sentenced, making his current motion raise a previously unavailable issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWatts was convicted in June 1991 of two counts of grand theft and two counts of uttering forged instruments arising from a November 29, 1990 transacti…
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 Habitual Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jack Lester Watts appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm without prejudice to the filing of a timely motion pursuant to rule 3.850.
Mr. Watts was convicted in June 1991 of two counts of grand theft and two counts of uttering forged instruments, arising out of a transaction at a Barnett Bank on November 29, 1990. He was sentenced to four consecutive ten-year terms of imprisonment as a habitual offender. The last term was suspended after four years, with the remaining six years to be served on probation.
In September 1991, the trial court denied a motion to correct the sentence. That motion alleged the convictions arose from a single episode and that “separate” convictions under Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1987), were improper. The current motion was filed in January 1995. It alleges that the four consecutive habitual offender sentences are improper under Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). The trial court summarily denied the motion on the ground that the issue had been raised and denied in 1991. The trial court’s reasoning is incorrect. Until Hale was issued on October 14, . 1993, the law of this district permitted consecutive habitual offender sentencing for offenses committed during a single criminal episode. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 599 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Thus, Mr. Watts is raising a new issue that was not available to him in 1991. If his allegations are correct, it appears that he is entitled to relief.
We affirm the order of the trial court because Mr. Watts has filed his motion under rule 3.800(a). This court has held that the Hale issue must be raised in a sworn motion under rule 3.850 in the two-year window created by the supreme court’s decision. Callaway v. State, 642 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), review granted, 652 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1995).
Accordingly, our affirmance is without prejudice to Mr. Watts raising the issue in a timely filed motion pursuant to rule 3.850.
Affirmed.
THREADGILL, C.J., and ALTENBERND and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…n the merits of Mr. Thomas's claim in his third and fourth motions because this court had not ruled on the merits of the substantive claim after the changes in case law. See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 289–90 (Fla. 2003). See Watts v. State, 657 So. 2d 1243, 1243–44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (holding that a second motion was not successive because the first motion was denied prior to the issuance of Hale). Despite this, the postconviction court continued to deny Mr. Thomas's subsequent motions as successive…
Authorities Cited
- Dion Michael Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1987)
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Callaway v. State, 642 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Carlton J. Brown v. State, 599 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)