GREGORY R. DIXON, 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.
The court affirmed the denial of Dixon's postconviction motion challenging consecutive habitual offender sentences because the motion was filed outside the two-year window established by Hale v. State for such challenges.
A postconviction motion challenging consecutive habitual offender sentences must be filed within two years of the denial of rehearing in Hale v. State or it is untimely.
[1] A postconviction challenge to consecutive habitual offender sentences must be filed within two years of the denial of rehearing in Hale v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGregory Dixon was sentenced to consecutive thirty-year habitual offender sentences for attempted manslaughter with a firearm and aggravated battery wi…
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 Timeliness Of Post-Conviction Relief Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gregory E. Dixon appeals an order denying his motion for postconvietion relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
With regard to Point X of the motion, defendant Dixon seeks to set aside his consecutive thirty-year habitual offender sentences for attempted manslaughter with a firearm and aggravated battery with a firearm.
We conclude that the motion is un timely for this claim. In State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995), the Florida Supreme Court held that its decision in Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994), is retroactive. 658 So. 2d at 987. The Callaway court held that there would be “a two-year window following this Court’s decision in Hale ... for criminal defendants to challenge the imposition of consecutive habitual felony offender sentences for multiple offenses arising out of a single criminal episode.” 658 So. 2d at 987. The Second District has held that the two-year period runs from the date of denial of rehearing in Hale, which was February 9, 1994. Lock v. State, 668 So. 2d 1081, 1081 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
Defendant’s current 3.850 motion was filed outside of the two-year limit. Since the current motion is untimely, we need not consider the state’s other procedural and substantive arguments for af-firmance.
Finding no error in the trial court’s ruling on this point, or any of the other issues raised by defendant’s current 3.850 motion, the order denying Rule 3.850 relief is affirmed. . «
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- Lock v. State, 668 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)