Hester v. State, 1D18-1209
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Citation | 267 So.3d 1084 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D18-1209,1D18-1209 |
| Parties | Eddie L. HESTER Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 03 April 2019 |
267 So.3d 1084
Eddie L. HESTER Jr., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D18-1209
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
April 3, 2019
Eddie L. Hester Jr., pro se, Appellant.
Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Barbara Debelius, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Winsor, J.
Eddie Hester Jr. was convicted of several crimes, all stemming from two Walmart robberies. A jury found him guilty of armed robbery, false imprisonment, kidnapping with a firearm, and—in a separate case—another count of armed robbery. The court sentenced him to consecutive terms based on the 10/20/Life law. See § 775.087, Fla. Stat. Hester appealed in both cases, and this court affirmed without opinion in both cases. See Hester v. State , 136 So.3d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (table).
Hester later filed a rule 3.800(a) motion, contending that consecutive minimum-mandatory sentences for certain of the counts were illegal because the offenses arose from a single criminal episode in which he did not fire a gun. See Williams v. State , 186 So.3d 989, 993 (Fla. 2016) (limiting availability of consecutive sentences under 10/20/Life statute). As Hester noted in his motion, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences based on this court's Walton v. State decision, 106 So.3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ( Walton I ), which the Florida Supreme Court later rejected, Walton v. State , 208 So.3d 60 (Fla. 2016) ( Walton II ). Hester was sentenced after Walton I but before Walton II , so the sentence was legal at the time it was imposed. When Hester failed to appeal, the sentence became final.
The question, then, is whether Walton II , on which Hester now relies, applies retroactively. In Osei v. State , this court held that Williams v. State did not
apply retroactively because it involved statutory interpretation and was not "constitutional in nature." 226 So.3d 1077, 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (evaluating retroactivity of Williams , 186 So.3d at 989 ); see also Jimenez v. State , 810 So.2d 511, 512-13 (Fla. 2001) (finding statutory-interpretation case not retroactive because it was not "constitutional in nature"). Because it was not retroactive, the new rule was not applicable to the postconviction proceeding at issue. Cf. Smith v. State , 598 So.2d 1063, 1066 n.5 (Fla. 1992) (noting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aspilaire v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 19-12605
...between a change in judicial doctrine and a change in law."). The same principle applies under Florida law. See Hester v. State , 267 So. 3d 1084, 1086 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Rivers , 511 U.S. at 313 n.12, 114 S.Ct. 1510 ). The prosecution in Williams was never valid under Flor......
-
Kimmons v. State, 1D16-0204
...criminal prosecution. The parties agree that the errors asserted here were unpreserved for appellate review. Accordingly, ordinary error 267 So.3d 1084is not enough, and reversal requires a showing of fundamental error. "[R]evoking probation based partly on a purported violation that was no......
-
Sokheang Im v. State, 2D21-825
...Nancy Moate Ley, Judge. Sokheang Im, pro se. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045 (Fla. 2011); Hester v. State, 267 So.3d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019); Osei v. State, 226 So.3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). VILLANTI, LUCAS, and STARGEL, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision ......
-
Morgan v. State, 3D19-37
...precedes the enactment of the 10-20-life statute. Morgan also argues that the First District's recent decision in Hester v. State, 267 So. 3d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), is inapposite.5 We disagree,Page 7 and the First District's analysis provides additional support for the trial court's deni......