JOHN J. WILCOX, 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.
Wilcox challenges his conviction for uttering a forgery, alleging he was denied counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The trial court summarily denied his Rule 3.850 postconviction petition, and this appeal addresses whether such relief is available when the original sentence has been fully served but used to enhance a subsequent federal sentence.
A petitioner incarcerated in another state due to enhancement from a prior conviction is 'in custody' within the meaning of Rule 3.850, FRCrP and may challenge the validity of the prior conviction. The trial court must afford a hearing on such postconviction challenges even though the original sentence has been served.
[1] A petitioner incarcerated in another jurisdiction is considered "in custody" for purposes of postconviction relief under Rule 3.850, FRCrP.
[2] A prior conviction used to enhance a federal sentence may be challenged through state postconviction remedies, even if the sentence for the prior conviction has been full…
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“A reading of Reynolds v. State reveals that the opinion is long on prose and short on factual recitation”
The court acknowledges the State's argument about Reynolds but finds it applicable to Wilcox's case despite factual differences.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilcox was convicted in 1962 of uttering a forgery in Duval County without counsel. He fully served that sentence and is now confined in a federal pen…
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 Sentence Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
Wilcox appeals from a summary denial of his “Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis or Appropriate Relief.” The State recognizes by its brief that the “appropriate relief” sought by Wilcox pro se in the trial court was a postconviction challenge to his conviction pursuant to the provisions of Rule 3.850, FRCrP, 33 F.S.A. The trial court denied Wilcox’s petition without a hearing.
By his petition Wilcox alleged that in Criminal Case No. 62-3876-C, in the Criminal Court of Record of Duval, County, he was convicted of uttering of a forgery without assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. He further alleged that he “has fully served the said sentence” for this conviction and “is now confined in the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, where such sentence was used to enhance punishment on his present Federal sentence.”
The State argues, citing this Court’s opinion in Young v. State,1 that Wilcox’s petition is not cognizable because he has admittedly served the sentence imposed by the challenged conviction. The foregoing cited decision does stand for the State’s *16position; however, Assistant Attorney General Allbritton commendably calls to our attention the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Reynolds v. State, 224 So.2d 769 (2 Fla.App. 1969), and the Supreme Court’s approval of same, State v. Reynolds, 238 So.2d 598 (Fla. 1970). In his brief, the able Assistant Attorney General tells us: “A reading of Reynolds v. State reveals that the opinion is long on prose and short on factual recitation”, and then reasons that the case is not applicable to the instant facts. We do not agree.
As we understand the Supreme Court’s decision in Reynolds, a petitioner incarcerated in another state is “in custody” within the meaning of Rule 3.850, FRCrP, for purposes of postconviction remedies. This decision by our Supreme Court, coupled with the federal Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972), clearly grants to Wilcox the opportunity to challenge his prior conviction, even though sentence for same has long ago been served. We note that in Tucker the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed a decision of the U. S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, which remanded the case for resentencing on the basis that the prisoner’s punishment was enhanced by two prior invalid convictions (one in Florida and one in Louisiana). In reaching this conclusion, the federal Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court accepted the determination of a California court that Tucker’s 1938 Florida sentence was invalid. In our opinion, a more orderly and justiciable review of the validity of a sentence can be afforded by the sentencing court rather than by a court of foreign jurisdiction.
The cause is reversed and remanded, with directions to afford Wilcox a hearing pursuant to the guidelines set forth in State v. Reynolds, 238 So.2d 598 (Fla. 1970).
SPECTOR, C. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weir v. State, 319 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…the rule need not be under the sentence being attacked where the movant contends the sentence he is serving was enhanced by the conviction he seeks to have set aside. State v. Reynolds, Fla.1970, 238 So. 2d 598; Wilcox v. State, Fla.App. 1st, 1972, 267 So. 2d 15. But no Florida court has held that a person not .in custody is entitled to relief under Rule 3.850, RCrP. Judge Barns’ opinion in Tolar v. State, Fla.App. 4th, 1967, 196 So. 2d 1, suggests the possibility of treating the motion as being filed unde…
-
Wall v. State, 525 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…entence being attacked where the movant contends the sentence he is serving was enhanced by the conviction he seeks to have set aside. See State v. Reynolds, 238 So. 2d 598 (Fla.1970); Weir v. State, 319 So. 2d 80 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Wilcox v. State, 267 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). However, appellant has made no such contention in the instant case and the record does not reflect that his New Mexico sentence was enhanced by his Florida conviction. Consequently, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to c…
-
Napoleon Howard v. State, 280 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…n of another crime of robbery. We are of the opinion that Howard is entitled to an evidentiary hearing based upon the rationale of State v. Reynolds, Fla.1970, 238 So. 2d 598; Lawson v. State, Fla.1970, 231 So. 2d 205; Wilcox v. State, Fla.App.1972, 267 So. 2d 15; Wilcox v. State, Fla.App.1972, 269 So. 2d 420; and Lenwood v. State, Fla.App.1973, Second District Court of Appeal, 278 So. 2d 323. At such evidentiary hearing it would be incumbent upon Howard to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that (1)…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1972)
- State v. Madison Lee Reynolds, 238 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1970)
- Madison Lee Reynolds v. State, 224 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Young v. State, 167 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Bretti v. State, 210 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Wingard v. State, 210 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)