RANDALL DEATHERAGE, 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.
Randall Deatherage appealed a postconviction order dismissing his Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging his felony convictions for driving with a suspended license. The court reversed in part, holding that while the postconviction court should have treated his claim as a Rule 3.850 motion rather than dismissing it, Deatherage was not entitled to relief because the statutory amendment reducing the penalty could not apply retroactively to his pre-amendment offense.
The court reversed the dismissal without prejudice and remanded for denial of the claim on the merits. While a Rule 3.800(a) motion raising non-cognizable claims meeting Rule 3.850 requirements should generally be treated as a Rule 3.850 motion rather than dismissed, Deatherage was not entitled to relief because section 322.34(10), as a substantive amendment to a criminal statute, does not apply retroactively to offenses committed before its effective date.
[1] A motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) that raises claims cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 should be treated as a 3.850…
[2] A criminal statute that is amended or repealed does not affect the prosecution or punishment for crimes committed before the amendment or repeal.
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“As a general rule, a rule 3.800(a) motion raising claims that are not cognizable under rule 3.800(a) but are cognizable under rule 3.850 should not be dismissed but rather should be treated as a motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850 when the motion meets timeliness and formal requirements of that rule.”
Establishes the proper procedural treatment of Rule 3.800(a) motions with non-cognizable claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeatherage was sentenced to two years in state prison on two counts of driving while his license was suspended or revoked, a third-degree felony. He f…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
Randall Deatherage appeals the order dismissing without prejudice in part, and denying in part, his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm, without comment, the postconviction court’s denial of Deather-age’s second claim. As to his first claim, we reverse the postconviction court’s dismissal without prejudice because the claim should have been denied.
Deatherage was sentenced to two years in state prison on two counts (in separate cases) of driving while his license was suspended or revoked, a third-degree felony. In his first claim, Deatherage alleged that his sentence is illegal because he lacked the requisite prior convictions necessary for felony convictions. The postconviction court ruled that the issue was not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion and dismissed the claim without prejudice for Deatherage to raise it in a rule 3.850 motion, even though his motion was submitted with an oath and within the time allowed for rule 3.850 motions.
As a general rule, a rule 3.800(a) motion raising claims that are not cognizable under rule 3.800(a) but are cognizable under rule 3.850 should not be dismissed but rather should be treated as a motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850 when the motion meets timeliness and formal requirements of that rule. See Riviere v. State, 965 So.2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). In this case, however, the erroneous legal basis of Deatherage’s claim demonstrates that he is not entitled to relief.
Deatherage argues that his felony convictions and state prison sentences should be converted to misdemeanors and county jail sentences by the retroactive application of subsection (10) of section 322.34, Florida Statutes, which became effective July 1, 2008. Ch. 2008-53, §§ 1, 3, Laws of Fla. With the addition of section 322.34(10), a person whose underlying license suspensions or revocations were for violations enumerated in section 322.34(10)(a) will no longer be subject to the third-degree felony penalty as otherwise provided by section 322.34(2)(e) for driving with a suspended license for a third or subsequent time, provided the person does not have a prior forcible felony conviction. Instead, under section 322.34(10)(b)(2), a second or subsequent conviction of driving while a license has been suspended or revoked for violations enumerated in section 322.34(10)(a) is now a first-degree misdemeanor.
As a substantive change to a criminal statute, section 322.34(10) does not apply retroactively to offenses committed before its effective date. See Art. X, § 9, Fla. *777Const. (“Repeal or amendment of a criminal statute shall not affect prosecution or punishment for any crime previously committed.”); Castle v. State, 330 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla.1976) (holding that a defendant was not entitled to be sentenced under a later enacted statute that reduced the maximum penalty for his crime); Santiago v. State, 731 So.2d 787, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that an amendment changing the predicate for a felony offense under section 322.34 did not apply retroactively); see also State v. Battle, 661 So.2d 38, 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (“The controlling statute for punishment is the statute in effect at the time of the commission of the crime.”).
In his motion, Deatherage alleged that he was sentenced on January 22, 2008, necessarily indicating that the offenses occurred before the effective date of section 322.34(10). Therefore, Deatherage’s claim, on its face, shows that he is not entitled to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court’s order to the extent Deatherage’s first claim was dismissed without prejudice and remand with directions for the postconviction court to deny the claim. The postconviction court’s order is affirmed in all other respects.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with directions.
FULMER, WHATLEY, and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Cantu, 17 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…ncial obligations. This section, however, became effective on July 1, 2008. See ch. 2008-53, §§ 1, 3, Laws of Fla. Cantu’s alleged offense occurred on May 1, 2008. Accordingly, the new statute does not apply to this offense. See Deatherage v. State, 15 So. 3d 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). We reverse the order of dismissal, reinstate the information, and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. CASANUEVA, C.J., and ALTENBERND and WHATLEY, JJ„ Concur.…
-
Green v. State, 257 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Darion Northrup Castle v. State, 330 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1976)
- State v. Battle, 661 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Riviere v. State, 965 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Patricio Santiago v. State, 731 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)