TIMOTHY ANTON TAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Timothy Anton Taylor appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), arguing the trial court vindictively sentenced him. The Third District Court of Appeal affirms, holding that vindictive sentencing claims cannot be raised via Rule 3.800(a) motions and certifies direct conflict with the Fifth District on this issue.
A claim of vindictive sentencing cannot be raised by a Rule 3.800(a) motion because such a claim constitutes an error leading up to the imposition of sentence, which does not render the sentence illegal for purposes of that rule. The Rule 3.800(a) motion was properly denied and, if treated as a Rule 3.850 motion, it would be time-barred since the conviction became final in 1995.
[1] A claim of vindictive sentencing cannot be raised by a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
[2] A claim of error leading up to the imposition of sentence does not render the sentence 'illegal' for purposes of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
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“It is clear that a claim of error leading up to the imposition of sentence does not render the sentence 'illegal' for purposes of Rule 3.800(a).”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that vindictive sentencing claims cannot be raised via Rule 3.800(a)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaylor was convicted in 1992 of second degree murder, two counts of attempted second degree murder, and shooting into an unoccupied vehicle. His convi…
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 Vindictive Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
Timothy Anton Taylor appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.800(a). We affirm.
Defendant-appellant Taylor was convicted of second degree murder, two counts of attempted second degree murder, and shooting into an unoccupied vehicle.1 The convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal in 1995. Taylor v. State, 659 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
In 2004, the defendant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He argued that the trial court had vindictively sentenced him. A successor judge denied the motion and the defendant has appealed.2
This court has previously held that a claim of vindictive sentencing cannot be raised by a Rule 3.800(a) motion. “It is clear that a claim of error leading up to the imposition of sentence does not render the sentence ‘illegal’ for purposes of Rule 3.800(a).” Valencia v. State, 645 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (citing State v. F.G., 630 So. 2d 581, 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), opinion adopted, 638 So. 2d 515 (Fla.1994)) (citation omitted). See also Wright v. State, 891 So. 2d 618, No. 3D04-2789 (Fla. 3d DCA opinion filed Jan. 26, 2005); Ey v. State, 884 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Boyd v. State, 880 So. 2d 726, 727-28 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 888 So. 2d 621 (Fla.2004).
We comment briefly on two recent cases from this court which addressed vindictive sentencing claims which had been brought under Rule 3.800(a). Both cases are distinguishable.
In Ortiz v. State, 884 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), this court issued an opinion denying a claim of vindictive sentencing which had been brought under Rule 3.800(a). There is no indication that any procedural objection was raised to the use of Rule 3.800(a) in that case, and the procedural issue was not discussed in the Ortiz opinion.
In Smith v. State, 842 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), this court issued an opinion which granted relief on a vindictive sentencing claim which had been brought under Rule 3.800(a). Again, there is no indication that any procedural objection was raised to the use of Rule 3.800(a) in that case, and the panel opinion did not discuss the procedural issue. A review of this court’s file in Smith indicates that the Rule 3.800(a) motion was filed within the two-year time limit for a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Since the Rule 3.800(a) motion could have been treated as a timely Rule 3.850 motion, the procedural error had no practical significance in that case.
The Valencia decision continues to be controlling. Rule 3.800(a) cannot be used to raise a postconviction claim of vindictive sentencing. The Rule 3.800(a) motion was properly denied.
Treating the defendant’s motion as a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, it is time-barred. The defendant’s conviction became final in 1995. The motion was filed well beyond the time limit for a Rule 3.850 motion.
The Fifth District allows a vindictive sentencing issue to be raised by a Rule 3.800(a) motion. See Johnson v. State, 877 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). We certify direct conflict with Johnson. See Wright, op. at 496; Ey, 884 So. 2d at 376 (certifying direct conflict with Johnson).
Affirmed; direct conflict certified.
. The crime date was December 10, 1992.
. Because the trial court clerk did not timely provide the order to the defendant, we conclude that he is entitled to a belated appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morales v. State, 909 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…entence, alleging vindictive sentencing. We have held that a vindictive sentencing claim cannot be [*479] brought by a motion to correct illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a). See Gonzalez v. State, 897 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Taylor v. State, 897 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Reese v. State, 896 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Luma v. State, 895 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Satahoo v. State, 895 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Galindez v. State, 892 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Wright v. State, 8…
-
Wilfredo Calzada v. State, 934 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In an abundance of caution, we will address the motion as if it was either filed under Rule 3.800(a) or Rule 3.850. First, “a claim of vindictive sentencing cannot be raised by a Rule 3.800(a) motion.” Taylor v. State, 897 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Next, if the motion was filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, the trial court properly denied the motion because the defendant’s claim of vindictive sentence was actually raised on direct appeal and decided on the merits. On February 5,…
-
Miller v. State, 937 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…[*1160] PER CURIAM. A claim of vindictive sentencing cannot be raised by a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). See Morales v. State, 909 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Taylor v. State, 897 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Treating the motion as a motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and assuming no procedural bar, the transcript excerpts cited by defendant-appellant Miller do not amount to vindictive se…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Boyd v. State, 880 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- State v. F.G., 630 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Johnson v. State, 877 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Boyd v. State, 888 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2004)
- Lacce Wright v. State, 891 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- State v. F.G., 638 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1994)
- Valencia v. State, 645 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Smith v. State, 842 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Romano v. E. Fin. Fed. Credit Union, 842 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Taylor v. State, 659 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)