SCOTTY BARTEK, 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.
Scotty Bartek appeals the dismissal of his petition for compensation under Florida's Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act, arguing it was timely filed within 90 days of the State's nolle prosequi. The appellate court affirms the dismissal, holding that the statute requires filing within 90 days of when the order vacating the conviction becomes final, not when the State enters a nolle prosequi.
The petition must be filed within 90 days after the order vacating a conviction and sentence becomes final. The mandate issued on December 20, 2013, making the deadline March 20, 2014. The State's subsequent nolle prosequi on February 27, 2014 does not restart the filing deadline, so Bartek's May 20, 2014 petition was untimely.
[1] A petition for compensation under Florida's Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act must be filed within 90 days after the order vacating a conviction and sent…
[2] The filing of a nolle prosequi by the State does not extend the time for filing a petition for compensation under Florida's Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 plain language of the statute requires a defendant to file the petition within 90 days after the order vacating a conviction and sentence becomes final, not upon the State entering a nolle prosequi.”
The trial court's reasoning for dismissing the petition, which the appellate court affirmed; establishes that the nolle prosequi does not restart the filing deadline.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBartek was convicted of sexual battery upon a child and sentenced to life in prison. After 22 years, he filed a post-conviction motion based on newly …
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 Nolle Prosequi cases and more on FLexlaw
Scotty Bartek appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his petition seeking compensation under Florida’s Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act (the Act). See §§ 961.01-07, Fla. S'tat. (2014). Determining that the trial court was correct in dismissing Bartek’s petition as untimely filed, we affirm.1
Bartek was convicted on two counts of sexual battery upon a child under twelve years of age and sentenced to a term of life in prison. After twenty-two years of incarceration, he filed a post-conviction motion seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The motion alleged that post-conviction relief was warranted because the victim had recanted her statement that Bartek had sexually battered her. Upon review, the trial court entered an order vacating Bartek’s conviction and ordering that he be re-tried. The State appealed, but we per curiam affirmed. State v. Bartek, 127 So.3d 526 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Our mandate was issued on December 20, 2013, and on February 27, 2014, the State entered a nolle prosequi in Bartek’s case.
On May 20, 2014, Bartek filed a petition for Compensation for Wrongful Incarceration. The State opposed the petition, arguing that it was untimely filed. Agreeing with the State, the trial court dismissed the petition as untimely. This appeal followed.
Bartek argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition as untimely *1010because it was filed within ninety days of the filing of the nolle prosequi We disagree.
“Statutory construction is a question of law ... subject to de novo review.” Fla. Carry, Inc. v. Univ. of Fla., 180 So.3d 137, 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (citations omitted).
. -The Act provides that a person must file a petition seeking compensation within 90 days after the order vacating a conviction an,d. sentence becomes final. § 961,03(l)(b)l., Fla, Stat. (2014), The Act does not mention the State’s filing of a nolle prosequi. As the trial court aptly observed in its dismissal order, “[t]he plain language of the statute requires a defendant to file the petition within 90 days after the order vacating a conviction and sentence becomes final, not upon the State entering a nolle prosequi ”
As such, Bartek had only until- March 20, 2014, to file a petition seeking compensation, Thus, his May 20, 2014 petition was untimely filed. See generally Ward v. Dugger, 508 So.2d 778, 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (interpreting the phrase “become final” in rule 3.850(b) as being the date mandate issued). Accord Beaty v. State, 701 So.2d 856, 857 (Fla.1997); Lewis v. State, 196 So.3d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Breland v. State, 58 So.3d 326, 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
We have reviewed Bartek’s other claims of error and find them to be without merit.
AFFIRMED.
TORPY and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brewster v. State, 250 So. 3d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…court dismissed his motion for return of restitution and compensation. Brewster now appeals the trial court's dismissal of his motion. We review the trial court's ruling de novo, as statutory construction is a question of law. See Bartek v. State , 198 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). Pursuant to section 961.01, Florida Statutes (2017), the legislature created the Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act, permitting compensation to persons wrongfully convicted of crimes. Under the act, a person is…
-
Brewster v. State, 248 So. 3d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Ward v. Dugger, 508 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Beaty v. State, 701 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1997)
- Fla. Carry, Inc. v. Univ. OF Fla., 180 So. 3d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Carlile Breland v. State, 58 So. 3d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Fessenden v. State, 52 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- VAN Poyck v. State, 54 So. 3d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Lewis v. State, 196 So. 3d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)