TONY C. JACKSON, 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.
The court held that the appellant's motion seeking retroactive benefit of Hale was untimely filed more than two years after the Hale decision.
Appellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and sentencing violations. The sentencing claim was bas…
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 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, appellant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, as to which we affirm, as the trial court attached portions of.the record conclusively refuting appellant’s allegations. Appellant also contends that he was sentenced to consecutive habitual offender sentences in violation of the rule set forth in Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993). In Dukes v. State, 703 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), this court adopted the view that “the two years for filing-a Hale claim by 3.850 motion, commenced on October 14, 1993, the date the Hale opinion was issued.” Appellant here filed his motion in May, 1996, beyond the two year period. Therefore, we must affirm. In Dukes, however, “because there was less than three months following Callaway1 within which to file a timely Hale claim,” this court certified the following question, which we also certify in the present case:
SHOULD A 3.850 MOTION SEEKING THE RETROACTIVE BENEFIT OF HALE, FILED MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER HALE, BUT WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE DECISION IN CALLAWAY, BE DEEMED TIMELY FILED?
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, C.J., JOANOS, J., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur. . State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995). In Callaway, the supreme court determined that Hale would apply retroactively and - that relief had to be sought within two years of the Hale decision.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dixon v. State, 730 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1999)…heir claims. Our decision renders Dixon’s renewed 3.850 motion timely because it was filed within two years of August 16, 1995, the date of our mandate in Callaway. Our decision also renders timely the motions of the defendants in Jackson v. State, 707 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1st DCA 1998), Dukes v. State, 703 So. 2d 498 (Fla.1st DCA 1997), and Sikes v. State, 683 So. 2d 599 (Fla.2d DCA 1996),7 all or whom also filed their motions within two years of the Court’s mandate in Callaway. We accordingly quash the decision…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- Griffin Dukes v. State, 703 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)