WILLIE C. TIPPINS, 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.
Willie Tippins appeals the denial of his post-conviction motion challenging his illegal sentence for cocaine trafficking. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing because Tippins was sentenced as a habitual felony offender despite a statute mandating he be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines, which violates State v. Mancino.
Tippins' sentence is illegal under State v. Mancino because it patently fails to comport with statutory limits, and the sentence is correctable through a Rule 3.800(a) motion. The law of the case doctrine does not preclude reconsideration because reliance on the previous decisions denying relief would result in manifest injustice.
[1] A court may correct an illegal sentence at any time pursuant to Rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[2] A sentence is illegal on the face of the record if it patently fails to comport with statutory or constitutional limits.
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“He was sentenced as a habitual felony offender, although section 893.135(l)(b)l.b. provides that the offender 'shall be sentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines.' Tippins' sentence is illegal under State v. Mancino”
Establishes the illegality of the sentence: the statute mandates sentencing guidelines but Tippins was sentenced as a habitual offender instead
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTippins was convicted of trafficking in cocaine under section 893.135(1)(b), Florida Statutes. He was sentenced as a habitual felony offender. However…
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 Manifest Injustice cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, C.J.
Willie C. Tippins appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Tippins was convicted of trafficking in cocaine in violation of section 893.135(l)(b)l.b., Florida Statutes. He was sentenced as a habitual felony offender, although section 893.135(l)(b)l.b. provides that the offender “shall be sentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines.” Tippins’ sentence is illegal under State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998). See Bryant v. State, 760 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Because it is improper on the face of the record, it is correctable through a 3.800(a) motion. Id. (citing Mancino, Summers v. State, 747 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Wright v. State, 743 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)). Rule 3.800(a) provides that a court may correct an illegal sentence at any time.
Previously, Tippins unsuccessfully sought' the relief he seeks here via a rule 3.850 motion, see Tippins v. State, 719 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), and through a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was denied by unpublished order. The state contends that because Tip-pins was previously denied relief, the law of the case should preclude reconsideration of the issue. We disagree. Tippins’ previous applications to this court were decided before issuance of Maneino, which clari fied that an illegal sentence is one which patently fails to comport with statutory or constitutional limits. In State v. Owen, 696 So. 2d 715 (Fla.1997), the supreme court held that reconsideration of the law of the case may be warranted in exceptional circumstances where reliance on a previous decision would result in manifest injustice. See also Zolache v. State, 687 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (appellate court has power to reconsider and correct rulings which have become law of the case, where reliance on previous decision would be manifest injustice and it would be fundamentally unfair to require defendant to serve sentence in excess of what is legally authorized).
The order denying relief is reversed and the case is remanded for resentencing.
REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.
SAWAYA, J., concurs.
GRIFFIN, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marrero v. State, 864 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…der the 1999 statute, Marrero would not have been eligible for a HFO sentence. See § 893.135(l)(b)(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (1999); Fortner v. State, 779 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Dillard v. State, 820 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Tippins v. State, 780 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Because defense counsel preserved this issue at the sentencing hearing and because we would have reversed Marrero’s HFO sentence had the issue been raised on direct appeal, we grant Marrero’s petition. We reverse his HFO sente…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- State v. Owen, 696 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1997)
- Timothy v. Summers, 747 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Wautara Wright v. State, 743 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Catalino Zolache v. State, 687 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Bryant v. State, 760 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)