CLIFTON LINDQUIST, 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.
Lindquist appealed a postconviction court's summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging the imposition of court costs and fees imposed during his 1998 sentencing. The court affirmed, holding that challenges to court costs are not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a) and must instead be raised through timely Rule 3.850 motions, which Lindquist's time to file had long expired.
Challenges to the imposition of court costs and fees are not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a). Such procedural challenges to sentencing must be raised in timely Rule 3.850 motions for postconviction relief, not Rule 3.800(a) motions.
[1] Challenges to the imposition of court costs and fees are not cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
[2] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is not a vehicle for re-examining whether the procedure employed to impose punishment comported with statutory law and due pro…
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“[Rule 3.800(a)] is not a vehicle designed to re-examine whether the procedure employed to impose the punishment comported with statutory law and due process.”
Establishes that Rule 3.800(a) does not address procedural challenges to sentencing methodology
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLindquist entered a negotiated plea to felony charges in 1998 and was sentenced as a violent career criminal to thirty years in prison. The trial cour…
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
Clifton Lindquist appeals the postconviction court’s order summarily denying his motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm as to all grounds but write to comment on one of the issues raised by Lindquist.
After Lindquist entered a negotiated plea to felony charges in 1998, the court sentenced him as a violent career criminal to a mandatory term of thirty years in prison. The court also imposed various costs and fees and ordered restitution to the victim. In his rule 3.800(a) motion filed fifteen years after he was sentenced, Lindquist challenged the trial court’s imposition of costs and fees on the ground that no one — the trial judge, his attorney, or the prosecutor — informed him of his right to contest them. Relying on the Fourth District’s opinion in Walden v. State, 112 So.3d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), the postconviction court denied Lindquist’s motion, noting that challenges to the imposition of court costs are not cognizable under rule 3.800(a). We agree with the postconviction court’s analysis.
Lindquist requests that he be granted a new sentencing hearing to correct the allegedly illegal imposition of costs. However, Lindquist’s specific claim takes issue with the procedure employed during sentencing, as opposed to the actual sentence imposed, and is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Steward v. State, 931 So.2d 133, 134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“Steward’s claims contesting the sentencing procedure are procedurally barred in a rule 3.800(a) motion.”); Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (en banc) (“[Rule 3.800(a) ] is not a vehicle designed to re-examine whether the procedure employed to impose the punishment comported with statutory law and due process.”). In contrast, this court has held that such challenges may be raised in a timely motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850. See Richie v. State, 777 So.2d 977, 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Townsend v. State, 604 So.2d 885, 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). But the time for Lindquist to file such a motion expired many years ago. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b).
Like the Fourth District in Walden, 112 So.3d at 580, we hold that challenges to the imposition of costs and fees are not cognizable under rule 3.800(a). Accordingly, the postconviction court’s order is affirmed.
Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Durant v. State, 177 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…rule 3.800(a). We agree with the rationale in Walden. We note that the Second District Court has cited Walden with approval in holding that the erroneous imposition of costs does not rise to the level of an illegal sentence. See Lindquist v. State, 155 So. 3d 1193, 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“Like the Fourth District in Walden, 112 So. 3d at 580, we hold that challenges to the imposition of costs and fees are not cognizable under rule 3.800(a).”). We conclude that the errors alleged in Durant’s motion regardin…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 202 So. 3d 460 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…DCA 1993).2 In all other respects, we affirm. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. PALMER, ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., concur. . Typically, the imposition of fees and costs cannot be raised under rule 3.800(a). See Lindquist v. State, 155 So. 3d 1193, 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (citing Walden v. State, 112 So. 3d 578, 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)). Instead, they must be challenged under rule 3.850. Id. (citing Richie v. State, 777 So. 2d 977, 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Townsend v. State, 604 So. 2d 885, 88…
-
McMinn v. State, 219 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Lindquist v. State, 155 So. 3d 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Durant v. State, 177 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (en banc); Walden v. State, 112 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Thomas v. State, 828 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). LaROSE, CRENSHAW, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Leonard v. State, 931 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Townsend v. State, 604 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Richie v. State, 777 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Samori K. Walden v. State, 112 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)