HELEN K. TIDWELL v. STATE OF FLORIDA
This text of 253 So. 3d 767 (HELEN K. TIDWELL v. STATE OF FLORIDA) 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.
Opinion
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
HELEN K. TIDWELL, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-545 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) )
Opinion filed August 31, 2018.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Mark F. Carpanini, Judge.
Helen K. Tidwell, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
VILLANTI, Judge.
Notwithstanding any earlier rulings of this court to the contrary as to case
CF98-000732-XX, we affirm without prejudice to Helen Tidwell's filing in the circuit court,
if she can do so in good faith, a facially sufficient motion seeking relief pursuant to
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000). See Lopez v. State, 890 So. 2d 534, 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) ("A Heggs claim is
cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion so long as the error is apparent on the face of the
record. Because a rule 3.800(a) motion is not constrained by time limits, the trial court
erroneously denied his claim as untimely." (citation omitted)); see also Heggs, 759 So.
2d at 627 ("[I]f a person's sentence imposed under the 1995 guidelines could have been
imposed under the 1994 guidelines (without a departure), then that person shall not be
entitled to relief under our decision here."). The circuit court shall not consider such a
motion successive. See, e.g., Huffman v. State, 192 So. 3d 687, 690-91 (Fla. 2d DCA
2016) (noting that "the doctrines of law of the case and collateral estoppel will not apply
to preclude consideration of a successive rule 3.800(a) motion when doing so would
result in a defendant serving a sentence that exceeds the sentence that could have
been legally imposed").
Affirmed.
SLEET and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
253 So. 3d 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helen-k-tidwell-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2018.