ALFRED C. DINKINS, 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.
Dinkins appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, claiming his attorney misadvised him about his escape plea and that gain time forfeiture violated his plea agreement. The court affirmed the denial, finding the first claim lacked merit and the second claim was untimely under the two-year limitations period.
The court held that the forfeiture of gain time on the Duval County sentences did not impact the Palm Beach County thirty-month sentence and thus did not violate the plea agreement, and that the second claim was untimely because the two-year limitation period began when the conviction became final, not when the defendant discovered the alleged misadvice.
[1] A defendant's escape conviction does not violate a plea agreement for a consecutive sentence if the forfeiture of gain time on prior sentences does not impact the sentenc…
[2] The two-year time limit for challenging a plea agreement under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 begins to run from the date of conviction finality, not from the d…
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“The forfeiture of gain time on his Duval County sentences did not impact the thirty-month sentence in the Palm Beach County case and did not violate the plea agreement in that case.”
Court's holding that the gain time forfeiture claim lacked merit because it did not affect the Palm Beach County plea terms.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1999, Dinkins entered a negotiated plea to escape while serving sentences from a Duval County case, receiving a thirty-month consecutive sentence i…
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 Gain Time Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the summary denial of the defendant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief.
In 1999, in the underlying Palm Beach County case, the defendant entered a negotiated plea to the charge of escape. The escape occurred while the defendant was serving sentences arising from a Duval County circuit court case. Pursuant to the negotiated plea in the Palm Beach County case, the defendant received a thirty-month sentence to be served consecutively to the Duval County sentences.
In 2006, the Department of Corrections audited the defendant’s sentences. The Department concluded that, as a result of the defendant’s escape conviction in the Palm Beach County case, he had forfeited the gain time which he had earned on his Duval County sentences. § 944.28(1), Fla. Stat. (1999).
In 2012, the defendant filed the rule 3.850 motion at issue in this Palm Beach County case. The defendant raised two claims: (1) the forfeiture of his gain time on his Duval County sentences violated his plea agreement in the Palm Beach County case by extending his ultimate release date for several more years; and (2) his attorney in the Palm Beach County case misad-vised him that he would cumulatively serve only eight to ten years in prison if he entered the negotiated plea to escape, and failed to advise him that his gain time on his Duval County sentences could be forfeited as a result of his escape conviction.
The defendant’s first claim lacks merit. The forfeiture of gain time on his Duval County sentences did not impact the thirty-month sentence in the Palm Beach County case and did not violate the plea agreement in that case.
The defendant’s second claim was untimely. The two-year time limit for challenging the plea in the Palm Beach County case began to run on the date that conviction became final, not on the date on which the defendant discovered his attorney’s alleged misadvice. Ey v. State, 982 So.2d 618, 625 (Fla.2008); Lonergan v. State, 13 So.3d 534, 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Gusow v. State, 6 So.3d 699, 704-05 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The defendant, with due diligence, could have discovered within *970the two-year time limit that his gain time could be forfeited under section 944.28(1) as a result of his escape conviction. Additionally, even if the forfeiture of gain time constituted a newly discovered fact providing an exception to the two-year time limit, which it does not, the defendant did not bring his claim within two years of discovery of the forfeiture. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1).
Affirmed.
WARNER, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dinkins v. State, 162 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…4th DCA 2009). See Steed v. State, 120 So. 3d 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (characterizing the claims as frivolous). This Court subsequently affirmed the denial of appellant’s second rule 3.850 motion, which was untimely and meritless. Dinkins v. State, 125 So. 3d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Based on appellant’s history of litigating untimely and frivolous claims, the Clerk of this Court is directed to forward a certified copy of this order to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary procedure…
Authorities Cited
- EY v. State, 982 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2008)
- Gusow v. State, 6 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Lonergan v. State, 13 So. 3d 534 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)