Bauer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bauer v. State

31 So. 3d 220, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 2539, 2010 WL 711789

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 3, 2010

Docket4D09-2260

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 31 So. 3d 220 (Bauer v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bauer v. State, 31 So. 3d 220, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 2539, 2010 WL 711789 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

WARNER, J.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s ninth motion to correct an illegal sentence. Appellant claims that his habitual felony offender sentence is illegal because a prior grand theft conviction cannot serve as a predicate conviction for HFO sentencing. He is wrong. See § 775.084(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999).

It continues to concern us that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 permits a prisoner to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence at any time, and there is no limit on the number of such motions which can be filed. See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 290 (Fla.2003) (“Florida courts have held, and we agree, that the phrase ‘at ány time’ allows defendants to file successive motions under rule 3.800.”). This has led to the proliferation of successive filings by prisoners and a substantial and costly increase in workload for both trial and appellate courts.

Rule 3.800(a) needs to be amended to require the prisoner to raise all contentions of illegality in the same motion and within two years of the sentence. The illegality of the sentence is present when the sentence is imposed. It shouldn’t take ten or fifteen years to discover it. We require rale 3.850 motions for postconviction relief to be brought within two years, and only one such motion can be brought, with certain limited exceptions. Likewise, limiting rale 3.800(a) motions would not deprive prisoners of any right. It would only reduce the cost of prisoner litigation.

Affimed.

POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WARNER, J.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s ninth motion to correct an illegal sentence. Appellant claims that his habitual felony offender sentence is illegal because a prior grand theft conviction cannot serve as a predicate conviction for HFO sentencing. He is wrong. See § 775.084(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999).

It continues to concern us that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 permits a prisoner to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence at any time, and there is no limit on the number of such motions which can be filed. See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287, 290 (Fla.2003) (“Florida courts have held, and we agree, that the phrase ‘at ány time’ allows defendants to file successive motions under rule 3.800.”). This has led to the proliferation of successive filings by prisoners and a substantial and costly increase in workload for both trial and appellate courts.

Rule 3.800(a) needs to be amended to require the prisoner to raise all contentions of illegality in the same motion and within two years of the sentence. The illegality of the sentence is present when the sentence is imposed. It shouldn’t take ten or fifteen years to discover it. We require rale 3.850 motions for postconviction relief to be brought within two years, and only one such motion can be brought, with certain limited exceptions. Likewise, limiting rale 3.800(a) motions would not deprive prisoners of any right. It would only reduce the cost of prisoner litigation.

Affimed.

POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 So. 3d 220, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 2539, 2010 WL 711789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bauer-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack