JOHN D. GENTRY, 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.
John D. Gentry appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion challenging consecutive habitual offender sentences as illegal under Hale v. State. The court reversed, finding the motion timely under the two-year window established in State v. Callaway and requiring that Hale sentencing issues be pursued through Rule 3.850 proceedings rather than Rule 3.800(a) motions.
Gentry's motion was timely because Hale applies retroactively and defendants have a two-year window period after October 14, 1993 (Hale's issuance date) to raise Hale issues. Hale sentencing issues must be pursued in Rule 3.850 proceedings because they require an evidentiary determination of whether offenses arose from a single criminal episode, which is not determinable in Rule 3.800(a) proceedings.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence is timely if filed within the two-year window period following the issuance date of Hale v. …
[2] Sentencing issues concerning whether offenses arose out of a single criminal episode, as established in Hale v. …
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“In Callaway, the supreme court held that Hale is to be applied retroactively and that defendants have a two year window period after the October 14, 1993, issuance date of Hale in which to raise Hale issues.”
Establishes the retroactive application of Hale and the two-year filing window that made Gentry's motion timely.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGentry was sentenced to consecutive habitual offender sentences. He filed a Rule 3.850 motion on April 24, 1995, asserting that the sentences were ill…
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 3.800(A) Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John D. Gentry appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion to correct an illegal sentence. We reverse.
Gentry asserted in his Rule 3.850 motion that his consecutive habitual offender sentences were illegal because the offenses were committed during a single criminal episode, citing Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994). The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the motion was untimely because it was filed more than two years beyond the date Gentry’s judgment and sentence became final and, further, that the motion was without merit based on the grounds stated in the trial court’s earlier denial of Gentry’s previous Rule 3.800(a) motion.1
The trial court did not have the benefit of State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995) at the time it ruled. In Callaway, the supreme court held that Hale is to be applied retroactively and that defendants have a two year window period after the October 14, 1993, issuance date of Hale in which to raise Hale issues. Therefore, Gentry’s motion, filed April 24, 1995, was timely. Additionally, Callaway requires that Hale sentencing issues be pursued in a Rule 3.850 proceeding because they require a determination of whether the offenses for which a defendant has been sentenced arose out of a single criminal episode, an issue not determinable in a Rule 3.800(a) proceeding as it requires an evidentiary determination.
Gentry’s Hale issue must be disposed of in a Rule 3.850 proceeding. If the trial court summarily denies his motion on remand, the trial court should attach the portions of the record which refute his claim. See Henry v. State, 644 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . The trial court denied Gentry's earlier Rule 3.800(a) motion based on its finding that the offenses were separate and distinct and the evidence involved different times and places. This court affirmed on the basis that a Rule 3.800(a) proceeding was not the proper remedy in which to raise a Hale claim. Gentry v. State, 652 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The affirmance was without prejudice to Gentry filing a proper Rule 3.850 motion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sims v. State, 675 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…denying the defendant’s Hale claims is reversed and remanded for the trial court to either attach portions of the record to refute the allegations or hold an evidentiary hearing. Massey v. State, 660 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Gentry v. State, 659 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). REVERSED AND REMANDED. COBB and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…
-
Pace v. State, 662 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…2-year period following Hale because the rule in Hale is retroactive under the analysis set forth in Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla.), cert. den., 449 U.S. 1067, 101 S.Ct. 796, 66 L.Ed.2d 612 (1980). Callaway, 658 So. 2d at 987; Gentry v. State, 659 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Rosier, 655 So. 2d at 162. Given the procedural history of the instant case, we conclude that Appellant falls within the class of defendants encompassed by the holdings in Calla-way and Rosier and, therefore, that his request fo…
-
Sikes v. State, 683 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…, and Mr. Sikes appealed. The issue, thus, is whether the two-year period announced in Callaway runs from the United States Supreme Court’s denial of review or from some earlier date. We agree with the Fifth District’s statement in Gentry v. State, 659 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), that the two-year period began on October 14, 1993, when the Supreme Court of Florida issued its decision in Hale. Rule 3.850(b) does not explicitly state when a “fundamental constitutional right” is “established,” or how long t…
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
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- Henry v. State, 644 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Dealers Ins. Co., Inc. v. Centennial Cas. Co., 644 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- White v. State, 652 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Hutchens v. State, 652 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)