WILLIE JAMES JONES, 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 James Jones appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and his amended habeas corpus petition. The court reversed because the denial order lacked the required copies of court records necessary to support a finding that the motion was successive, and remanded for proper proceedings.
The court reversed the denial order because it failed to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a)(2), which requires that when dismissing a successive motion, the court must make required findings and attach copies of the necessary court records to support the dismissal.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) may be filed at any time.
[2] There is no prohibition against a defendant filing successive motions to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
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) provides that a motion to correct an illegal sentence may be filed "at any time." Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a). Moreover, there is no prohibition against a defendant filing successive motions under rule 3.800(a).”
Establishes that Rule 3.800(a) motions have no time limit and successive filings are permitted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and an amended petition for writ of habeas…
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 Successive Postconviction Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
Willie James Jones appeals an order summarily denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and denying his amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. The postconviction court determined that the motion and the amended petition alleged the same grounds for relief and were untimely and successive. The court also held that Jones had raised the same grounds for relief on prior occasions and that relief had been denied. Because the denial order is not accompanied by a copy of the court records necessary to support the court’s ruling, we reverse.1
Initially, we note that the court applied the wrong standard when denying the motion as untimely and successive. Rule 3.800(a) provides that a motion to correct an illegal sentence may be filed “at any time.” Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a). Moreover, there is no prohibition against a defendant filing successive motions under rule 3.800(a). State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 290 (Fla.2003) (citations omitted). Rule 3.800(a)(2) allows a court to dismiss a second or successive motion if it finds that the motion fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the merits. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a)(2). If “a motion is dismissed under this subdivision, a copy of that portion of the files and records necessary to support the court’s ruling must accompany the order dismissing the motion.” Id.
In the present case, no portions of the court file or court records were attached to the denial order. Accordingly, we reverse the order under review and remand for further proceedings. If the postconviction court thereafter dismisses the motion as successive under rule 3.800(a)(2), then it must make the required findings in its order and attach to its order copies of the necessary court records to support its dismissal. Alternatively, upon review, if the court finds that the current motion alleges new or different grounds for relief not previously decided, then the court should consider the merits of the motion.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
TORPY and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 244 So. 3d 1173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
De La Cruz v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a)(2); Jones v. State, 198 So. 3d 920, 921 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Mills v. State, 23 So. 3d 186, 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); see also Nieves v. State, 113 So. 3d 162, 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“[A] defendant who is arrested for different offenses on different dates is not entitled to have jail…
-
De La Cruz v. State, 258 So. 3d 515 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…Cruz, Raiford, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a)(2); Jones v. State, 198 So. 3d 920, 921 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Mills v. State, 23 So. 3d 186, 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); see also Nieves v. State, 113 So. 3d 162, 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“[A] defendant who is arrested for different offenses on different dates is not entitled to have j…
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
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)