JIMMY CROTTS, 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.
Jimmy Crotts appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal habitual offender sentence. The court reversed, holding that Crotts made a facially sufficient claim for relief that must be considered on its merits because King v. State, a case decided after his prior challenges, applies retroactively and because substantive due process requires correction of patently illegal sentences.
The trial court erred in summarily denying Crotts's motion. Although successive review is generally barred, the successiveness doctrine is inapplicable here because Crotts seeks retroactive application of King, a case decided after his prior adverse rulings. Additionally, substantive due process requires that patently illegal sentences be corrected despite the law-of-the-case doctrine, and Crotts's allegations, if true, show his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum and is patently illegal.
[1] A defendant is generally not entitled to successive review of a specific issue previously decided against them, but this doctrine is inapplicable when the defendant seeks…
[2] Substantive due process requires correction of a patently illegal sentence, even if the law-of-the-case doctrine would otherwise preclude reconsideration.
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“substantive due process requires that a patently illegal sentence be corrected- despite the law-of-the-case doctrine”
Establishes the fundamental principle that constitutional protections override procedural bars to challenging illegal sentences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1989, Crotts was convicted of burglary of a dwelling (a second-degree felony) and received a guidelines sentence of 66 months' prison followed by 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 Substantive Due Process cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.
Jimmy Crotts appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Crotts alleges that his current habitual offender sentence is illegal under King v. State, 681 So. 2d 1136 (Fla.1996), receded from on other grounds by Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173 (Fla.2001). We conclude that Crotts has made a facially sufficient claim for relief which must be considered on its merits and reverse for further proceedings.
The trial court summarily denied Crotts’s motion, finding that it was successive because Crotts had previously raised the same issue and had it decided against him. While the trial court is correct that a defendant is generally not entitled to successive review of a specific issue that has been decided against him or her, see Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), there are two problems with applying this principle to the instant case. First, because Crotts seeks retroactive application of King, a case decided after the adverse decisions on his prior challenges to his habitual sentence, the successiveness doctrine is inapplicable. See, e.g., Witt v. State, 465 So. 2d 510 (Fla.1985) (noting that a change in the law would justify reconsideration of an issue previously raised).
Secondly, substantive due process requires that a patently illegal sentence be corrected-despite the law-of-the-case doctrine. Lawton v. State, 731 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). In the instant case, if Crotts’s allegations are correct, then it can be determined from the face of the record that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum for the offense and is patently illegal. Crotts is therefore entitled to have his motion decided on its merits.
Crotts alleges that, in 1989, he was convicted of burglary of a dwelling, a second-degree felony, and given a guidelines sentence of sixty-six months’ prison followed by eighteen months’ probation. According to Crotts’s motion, his original sentence was not a habitual offender sentence. After being released from prison, Crotts violated his probation and, in 1991, he was sentenced to twenty years’ prison as a habitual felony offender for that violation.
If these facts are true, Crotts’s habitual offender sentence is illegal. See King, 681 So. 2d at 1140 (holding that where original sentencing judge imposed a guidelines sentence, defendant could not be sentenced as a habitual offender upon violation of probation). Although Crotts was sentenced before the supreme court decided King, that decision has been applied retroactively in postconviction proceedings. See House v. State, 696 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Such a sentencing error is also cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding. Samuels v. State, 757 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
If Crotts’s allegations prove true, he will be entitled to be resentenced in conformity with the sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of his offense and within the statutory maximum. If the trial court again denies Crotts’s motion, it shall attach record documents that conclusively demonstrate that his current sentence is legal under King.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Isom v. State, 800 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…n the face of the State’s response that Isom argues points previously raised and rejected, Isom points out that substantive due process requires that a patently illegal sentence be corrected despite the law of the case doctrine. See Crotts v. State, 795 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Lawton v. State, 731 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)(holding substantive due process requires patently illegal sentence be corrected despite the law of case doctrine). A review of the record here reveals no such patent illegality.…
-
Robinson v. State, 816 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…ant to rule 3.800, which may be filed at any time. See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Turner v. State, 804 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Johnson v. Moore, 801 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). See also Crotts v. State, 795 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (rejecting application of successiveness and law-of-the-case doctrines to defendant’s challenge to an HFO sentence, because the supreme court had decided a case addressing the particular issue after the adverse decisions on his pr…
-
Morgan v. State, 840 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…for a third degree felony in 1997 was imprisonment not to exceed five years — not ten. The proper method for correcting an illegal sentence is by filing a motion pursu [*1153] ant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). See Crotts v. State, 795 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Marciniak v. State, 754 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); DeSantis v. State, 400 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). On remand, the trial court may exercise its discretion to treat this motion, filed pursuant to rule 3.850, as one file…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2001)
- King v. State, 681 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1996)
- Witt v. State, 465 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1985)
- Lawton v. State, 731 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Price v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Wilson v. State, 692 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- House v. State, 696 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Samuels v. State, 757 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)