JAMES BRUCE MASSEY, 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.
Massey appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion challenging consecutive habitual felony offender sentences imposed in 1990. The Florida Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Hale v. State held that consecutive habitual offender sentences cannot be imposed for offenses arising from a single criminal episode, providing a significant change in law supporting Massey's claim.
The motion was timely because it was filed within two years of when Hale was decided, and Hale satisfies the three-prong Witt standard for retroactive application. The trial court erred in denying the motion based on a prior Rule 3.800(a) ruling that was affirmed without prejudice to file a Rule 3.850 motion.
[1] Consecutive habitual felony offender sentences cannot be imposed for offenses arising from a single criminal episode.
[2] A postconviction motion may be filed to raise a claim based on significant changes in the law that occurred within two years of the motion's filing.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a defendant may file a postconviction motion raising a claim based on significant changes in the law which have been made within two years”
Establishes the legal standard for timeliness of postconviction motions based on changes in law, citing Adams v. State
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMassey was sentenced in 1990 to consecutive habitual felony offender sentences for offenses arising from a single criminal episode. His direct appeal …
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 Witt Standard For Retroactivity cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Appellant filed a Rule 3.850 motion alleging that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive habitual felony offender sentences for offenses arising from a single criminal episode. Appellant was sentenced in 1990 and his sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. See Massey v. State, 589 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA1991), approved, 609 So. 2d 598 (Fla.1992). However, in 1993, the Florida Supreme Court held in Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994), that consecutive habitual offender sentences could not be imposed for offenses arising from a single criminal episode.
The state contends that appellant’s Rule 3.850 motion was properly denied since it was filed more than two years after the challenged sentences became final and therefore was untimely. However, in Adams v. State, 543 So. 2d 1244 (Fla.1989), the Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant may file a postconvietion motion raising a claim based on significant changes in the law which have been made within two years. Since the record establishes that appellant’s Rule 3.850 motion was filed within two years of when Hale was decided, the motion is not untimely since Hale satisfies the three-prong Witt1 standard for retroactive application. State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995).
The trial court denied appellant’s Rule 3.850 motion because the same issue was raised in a prior Rule 3.800(a) motion and denied. However, this court affirmed the denial of the Rule 8.800(a) motion without prejudice to file a Rule 3.850 motion and did not rule on the merits. See Massey v. State, 648 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
Since the record clearly reflects that consecutive habitual felony offender sentences were imposed and the appellant’s allegation that the offenses involved arose from a single episode has not been refuted by any attachments to the trial court’s order, the order denying appellant’s Rule 3.850 motion is reversed and the case remanded to the trial court to either attach portions of the record refuting the allegation that appellant’s consecutive sentences arose from a single criminal episode or hold an evidentiary hearing. If the offenses were part of a single criminal episode, appellant must either be resen-tenced to concurrent habitual felony offender sentences or to consecutive non-habitual felony offender sentences which are within the recommended guideline range or are supported by a valid reason for departure. See Pope v. State, 646 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
REVERSED.
HARRIS and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1067, 101 S.Ct. 796, 66 L.Ed.2d 612 (1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sims v. State, 675 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…to the trial court’s order, that portion of the order 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.…
-
Ayres v. State, 708 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…on was untimely. A motion for post-conviction relief based on a significant change in the law must be filed within two years of the date the facts became known or the change was announced. Adams v. State, 543 So. 2d 1244 (Fla.1989); Massey v. State, 660 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The Cuda ease was decided on June 30, 1994. Ayres’ written motion was not filed until July 5, 1996, more than two years and a few days later. But, Ayres’ oral motion clearly put the state on notice concerning the Cuda issues inv…
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- Adams v. Peat, 449 U.S. 1067 (U.S. 1980)
- Jarrett v. Jarrett, 449 U.S. 1067 (U.S. 1980)
- In re Amendment TO Fla. Rules OF Jud. Administration-Rule 2.125(b)(1), 543 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1989)
- Massey v. State, 609 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1992)
- Pope v. State, 646 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Massey v. State, 589 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Massey v. State, 648 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)