McCuiston v. State, 87-694
| Decision Date | 29 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-694,87-694 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1357,507 So.2d 1185 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1357 Timmy Ray McCUISTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Timmy Ray McCuiston appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-convicition relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.
In response to McCuiston's motion the state's attorney argued it was untimely filed. McCuiston was convicted of robbery on March 12, 1984, and filed his motion for post-conviction relief on February 3, 1987. The trial court denied McCuiston's motion because it was filed more than two years after his conviction. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850.
McCuiston points out, however, that he had appealed his conviction to this court. The court's file reveals that the mandate of this court was not issued until February 8, 1985. McCuiston argues that under rule 3.850, he had two years from this date to file his motion, thus his motion filed on February 3, 1987 was timely.
Among other things, rule 3.850 provides:
A motion to vacate a sentence which exceeds the limits provided by law may be filed at any time. No other motion shall be filed or considered pursuant to this rule if filed more than two years after the judgment and sentence become final unless it alleges (1) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or his attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence, or, (2) the fundamental constitutional right asserted was not established within the period provided for herein and has been held to apply retroactively. (Emphasis added).
A judgment becomes final only when the appellate process, once started, has been completed. Cicero v. Paradis, 184 So.2d 212, 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). The appellate process is completed on the date the mandate is issued. Thibodeau v. Sarasota Memorial Hospital, 449 So.2d 297, 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Thus, McCuiston's judgment of conviction for robbery was not final until this court's mandate issued on February 8, 1985. McCuiston filed his rule 3.850 motion on February 3, 1987, within two years of the date his judgment became final, therefore McCuiston's motion was timely filed.
McCuiston's instant rule 3.850 motion is his second arguing that his sentence to fifteen years as a habitual felony offender was an unlawful departure from the sentencing guidelines. In this second motion, however, McCuiston claims the benefit of Whitehead v. State, 498 So.2d 863 (Fla.1986), which held that the habitual felony offender statute is not an exemption to the sentencing guidelines, nor can it be used as a grounds for exceeding a guidelines sentence. However, before we deal with Whitehead we must decide whether McCuiston has abused the process of post-conviction relief.
A second rule 3.850 motion asserting the same grounds as the first may be dismissed as an abuse of process unless the successive motion can be justified. Witt v. State, 465 So.2d 510, 512 (Fla.1985). McCuiston argues that his second motion was justified because the occurrence of the Whitehead decision in 1986 is a fact that was unknown to him at the time he filed his first rule 3.850 motion in 1984. A subsequent court decision is not, however, the kind of undiscovered fact "relevant to issues in the cause" that would justify a second motion for post-conviction relief according to Witt or rule 3.850.
On the other hand, the rule of Whitehead is a change in the law since McCuiston filed his first motion for post-conviction relief. Arguably, it supports his position. Therefore, we cannot say that McCuiston has abused the process of post-conviction relief by filing a second rule 3.850 motion which asserts a change in the law possibly affecting his sentence. Witt.
Now, we must decide whether the rule of Whitehead applies in McCuiston's case. This squarely presents the issue of whether or not Whitehead is to be applied retroactively. In other words, is the rule of Whitehead a change of law sufficient to support a challenge to a conviction and sentence that were valid when made? Only the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court can adopt a change in law sufficient to support such a challenge. Witt v. State, 465 So.2d 510, 512 (Fla.1985), citing Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla.1980).
On McCuiston's appeal this court decided that there was a valid factual basis for McCuiston's habitual offender sentence, and that this was a clear and convincing reason for departing from the sentencing guidelines. McCuiston v. State, 462 So.2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). At that time, habitual felony offender status was a valid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowe v. State, 88-4
...which became final prior to the announcement of that decision. Cusic v. State, 512 So.2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); McCuiston v. State, 507 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). In other words, a guideline departure based upon the habitual offender statute is not an illegal sentence per se. The First......
-
GEICO Financial Services, Inc. v. Kramer
...once started, has been completed. Porter Lumber Co. v. Tim Kris, Inc., 530 So.2d 398, 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); McCuiston v. State, 507 So.2d 1185, 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), approved, 534 So.2d 1144 (Fla.1988); Whitley v. Maryland Casualty Co., 376 So.2d 476, 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Cicero v......
-
Dupont v. State
...reasons for departure previously considered acceptable, generally are not considered retroactive. See, e.g., McCuiston v. State, 507 So.2d 1185 (Fla.2d DCA 1987). Ardley v. State, 491 So.2d 1259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Additionally, guideline-related errors which could be raised on appeal may ......
-
McCuiston v. State
...A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent. GRIMES, Justice. We review McCuiston v. State, 507 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), because of conflict with Hall v. State, 511 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), and Frierson v. State, 511 So.2d 1016 (Fla. ......