DANIEL HILBERT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence for escape was time-barred because it was properly characterized as a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion filed more than two years after conviction became final, and it did not qualify for an exception to the two-year bar.
A challenge to the validity of a conviction for escape based on the defendant's supervised release status must be treated as a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion rather than a Rule 3.800 illegal sentence motion, and is time-barred if filed more than two years after conviction.
[1] A challenge to the validity of a conviction for escape based on the defendant's legal status must be brought as a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion rather than a Rule 3.8…
[2] A Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion to vacate a conviction is time-barred if filed more than two years after the conviction becomes final, unless an exception to the time…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniel Hilbert was convicted and sentenced in 1990 for escape while in supervised release status. He filed a motion to correct his sentence in March 1…
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 Escape cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By way of a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence brought pursuant to Rule 3.800, Fla.R.Crim.P., appellant Daniel Hilbert seeks to challenge the validity of his 1990 conviction and sentence for escape. Based upon the holding of Munn v. State, 573 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), Hilbert argues that where he was in a supervised release status and not confined as that term is defined in section 945.091(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1989),1 he could not properly be convicted of escape.
We find that Hilbert’s challenge to the validity of his conviction for escape must be properly treated as a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P. rather than Rule 3.800 which confines itself to relief from illegal sentences. See Wiley v. State, 604 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73, 76-77 (Fla. 2d DCA) (en banc), rev. denied, 613 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1992).
Hence, since this is really a 3.850 motion to vacate a 1990 conviction based upon Hilbert’s claim of innocence to the escape charge, we find that it is time-barred because it was filed more than two years after the conviction became final; the defendant was sentenced on November 4, 1990, but did not file his motion until March 22, 1995. We further note that the motion does not qualify as an exception to the two year time-bar. See Rule 3.850(b), Fla. R.Crim.P.
Affirmed.
. Section 945.091(l)(d) states in pertinent part that "[w]hile in a supervised release status, the inmate shall not be considered to be in the care and custody of the department or in confinement, extended or otherwise."
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rivas v. State, 43 So. 3d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…ting that Rule 3.800 cannot be used to circumvent the strict time requirements of rule 3.850; fact-based challenges that sentences were unlawful must be raised on direct appeal or in rule 3.850 motion and not by way of rule 3.800); Hilbert v. State, 661 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“A motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to rule 3.800 challenging the validity of conviction and not the legality of sentence must be properly treated as a motion pursuant to rule 3.850 and not rule 3.800.”). Also…
-
Hilbert v. State, 679 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…[*871] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Hilbert v. State, 661 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).…
-
Doyle v. State, 77 So. 3d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…t. Because the motion challenges the defendant’s conviction rather than his sentence, we treat his motion as a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See, e.g., Rivas v. State, 43 So. 3d 154, 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Hilbert v. State, 661 So. 2d 895, 895-96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The motion was untimely on its face and thus properly denied. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Wiley v. State, 604 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Munn v. State, 573 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)