NED WAYNE BALL, 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.
Ned Wayne Ball appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion to correct a sentencing error arising from consecutive habitual offender sentences imposed before a Supreme Court decision declaring such consecutive sentences illegal. The court reverses and remands, holding that Ball's motion should be treated as a timely Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct a patently illegal sentence that can be raised at any time.
The court holds that Ball's motion to correct a patently illegal sentence can be treated as a timely Rule 3.800(a) motion and must be addressed on the merits. A patently illegal consecutive habitual offender sentence may be corrected at any time under Rule 3.800(a), regardless of procedural windows that may apply to Rule 3.850 motions, because substantive due process requires that such illegal sentences be corrected.
[1] A motion to correct a sentencing error filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 may be treated as a timely filed motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Crim…
[2] Consecutive habitual offender sentences imposed for offenses arising from a single criminal episode are illegal.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“In light of the record in the trial court, the illegality of Mr. Ball's consecutive habitual offender sentences was a matter that could be raised and resolved at any time under rule 3.800(a).”
Establishes the court's holding that patently illegal sentences can be corrected at any time without regard to procedural windows or time limitations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn August 24, 1992, Ball was sentenced for two third-degree felonies—grand theft of a pickup truck and grand theft of a freezer full of meat inside th…
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 Criminal Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Ned Wayne Ball appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion to correct a sentencing error filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We conclude that this motion should be treated as a timely filed motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
Mr. Ball was sentenced on August 24, 1992, for two offenses. The trial court record establishes without dispute that, on April 14, 1992, Mr. Ball took a pickup truck belonging to the Silverado Steak Company. In the bed of the truck was a freezer full of meat. The State charged Mr. Ball for the third-degree felony of grand theft of an auto and for a separate third-degree felony grand theft concerning the freezer and its contents. These two crimes clearly arise from one criminal episode.
In 1992, Mr. Ball’s sentence under the guidelines for these two offenses could not exceed two consecutive five-year sentences. His scoresheet apparently permitted a longer sentence. Accordingly, the State sought to impose a habitual offender sentence. Prior to the supreme court’s decision in Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), Mr. Ball pleaded to these two offenses in exchange for a ten-year habitual offender sentence followed by a consecutive seven-year habitual offender sentence.
Once the supreme court issued its decision in Hale declaring such consecutive sentencing illegal, Mr. Ball began efforts to have his sentence corrected. His efforts were complicated by the windows for review under rule 3.850 that were announced in State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983, 987 (Fla.1995), and Dixon v. State, 730 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1999). At least in retrospect, it would appear that one earlier unsuccessful motion served by Mr. Ball on August 15, 1997, was within the window announced by the supreme court in 1999 in Dixon. Another motion he served in March 1997 never managed to reach the circuit court. We do not need to determine the effect of these unusual circumstances. See 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). In light of the record in the trial court, the illegality of Mr. Ball’s consecutive habitual offender sentences was a matter that could be raised and resolved at any time under rule 3.800(a). See Allen v. State, 779 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); West v. State, 790 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
Reversed and remanded.
PARKER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J„ Concur.
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)
- Dixon v. State, 730 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1999)
- Lawton v. State, 731 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- West v. State, 790 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Allen v. State, 779 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Hester v. State, 779 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)