WILLIE VALENTINE, 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 Valentine appeals the dismissal of his rule 3.850/3.800 motion for post-conviction relief alleging denial of the right to be present at re-sentencing under 1994 guidelines. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding the motion legally deficient under the applicable rules and noting Valentine had raised the same claim in a prior motion without addressing the prior denial.
The court affirmed the dismissal of the motion on the grounds that it was legally deficient under rule 3.850(c) and rule 3.800(a), and because Valentine had raised the same claim in a prior motion without addressing the trial court's prior denial. The court affirmed without prejudice to Valentine's right to file a new motion containing required information and details about the re-sentencing circumstances.
[1] A trial court retains subject matter jurisdiction over a post-conviction relief motion when a prior appeal of an unrelated claim has not yet had its mandate issued.
[2] A motion for post-conviction relief may be dismissed if the movant has previously raised the same claim in a prior, denied motion.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“While Appellant may have a claim for relief on the merits of his motion, see Dougherty v. State, 785 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), his motion in this case was legally deficient.”
Establishes that while Valentine's underlying claim may have merit, the motion was procedurally deficient and properly dismissed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceValentine filed a rule 3.850/3.800 motion for post-conviction relief claiming he was denied the right to be present for re-sentencing under 1994 guide…
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 Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Willie Valentine, appeals a trial court order dismissing his rule 3.850/3.800 motion for post-conviction relief. In this motion, Appellant alleged that he was denied the right to be present for re-sentencing under the 1994 guidelines, apparently based on Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). The trial court dismissed his motion on the grounds that he raised the same issues previously raised in a motion filed in the trial court, the denial of which was said to be before this court in a then pending appeal.
Our records do not match the trial court’s understanding. Our records show that when Appellant filed the subject motion, this court had not yet issued its mandate in an appeal of the denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion on another, unrelated claim. The trial court would not have been divested of subject matter jurisdiction in these circumstances. See Bates v. State, 704 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Kimmel v. State, 629 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 639 So. 2d 981 (1994).
Nevertheless, we affirm the summary denial of this motion for post-conviction relief because the trial court’s order suggests that Appellant has raised the same claim raised here, of denial of the right to be present at a re-sentencing, in at least one other motion, for post-conviction relief filed in the trial court, which was denied. Appellant makes no mention of this prior motion, purportedly filed in February 2001, in the subject 3.850/3.800 motion. This prior motion, and the trial court’s order denying it, may have been proper on the merits and may have supported the trial court’s denial of this second motion "'allegedly raising the same point. We cannot find that Appellant’s re-sentencing was illegal on the face of the record.
While Appellant may have a claim for relief on the merits of his motion, see Dougherty v. State, 785 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), his motion in this case was legally deficient. Rule 3.850(c), Fla. R.Crim. P. See Alkanan v. State, 786 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). For the reasons above, it also appears insufficient under rule 3.800(a). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order of dismissal, without prejudice to Appellant’s right to file a new motion for post-conviction relief which contains the required information of these rules, and includes the date and circumstances surrounding Appellant’s re-sentencing.
STONE, WARNER, and' STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Bates v. State, 704 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Dougherty v. State, 785 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Kimmel v. State, 629 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Hytham Alkanan v. State, 786 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)