Sikes v. State
| Decision Date | 15 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-02585,96-02585 |
| Citation | 683 So.2d 599 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D2462 Gary Dean SIKES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gary Dean Sikes appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, that requested a correction of consecutive habitual offender sentences. The trial court denied the motion as untimely. We affirm because the change of law in Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1993), was "announced" on October 14, 1993, more than two years before this motion was filed.
Mr. Sikes pleaded nolo contendere and was sentenced as a habitual offender on August 5, 1993, for burglary and grand theft. The trial court sentenced Mr. Sikes to a total of twenty years' imprisonment, fifteen years for burglary and five consecutive years for grand theft. We note that the trial court could have sentenced Mr. Sikes, as a habitual offender, to thirty years' imprisonment for the burglary because it is a second-degree felony. Mr. Sikes did not appeal his judgments and sentences.
About two months later, on October 14, 1993, the Supreme Court of Florida issued its decision in Hale, holding that multiple habitual offender sentences arising from a single criminal episode must be imposed concurrently. The supreme court denied rehearing in Hale on February 9, 1994. Thereafter, Mr. Hale petitioned for certiorari review in the United States Supreme Court. That Court denied review on October 3, 1994, Hale v. Florida, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 278, 130 L.Ed.2d 195 (1994), and denied rehearing on December 12, 1994, Hale v. Florida, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 686, 130 L.Ed.2d 617 (1994). The Supreme Court of Florida later held that there would be a two-year window period following Hale in which criminal defendants could challenge the imposition of consecutive habitual offender sentences for multiple offenses arising from a single episode. State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983 (Fla.1995).
Mr. Sikes waited until February 12, 1996, to mail his motion for postconviction relief to the trial court. That court denied the motion as untimely, and Mr. Sikes appealed. The issue, thus, is whether the two-year period announced in Callaway runs from the United States Supreme Court's denial of review or from some earlier date.
We agree with the Fifth District's statement in Gentry v. State, 659 So.2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), that the two-year period began on October 14, 1993, when the Supreme Court of Florida issued its decision in Hale. Rule 3.850(b) does not explicitly state when a "fundamental constitutional right" is "established," or how long thereafter a prisoner has to seek relief. In Adams v. State, 543 So.2d 1244 (Fla.1989), the supreme court explained that a prisoner has two years from the time a fundamental change is "announced" in which to file for relief pursuant to rule 3.850. In Adams, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dixon v. State
...defendants in Jackson v. State, 707 So.2d 339 (Fla.1st DCA 1998), Dukes v. State, 703 So.2d 498 (Fla.1st DCA 1997), and Sikes v. State, 683 So.2d 599 (Fla.2d DCA 1996),7 all or whom also filed their motions within two years of the Court's mandate in Callaway. We accordingly quash the decisi......
-
Hill v. State
...was announced on October 14, 1993, when the opinion was issued, and not on February 9, 1994, when rehearing was denied. Sikes v. State, 683 So.2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Under circumstances where prospectivity was not a factor, both this court and the Fifth District applied Pope v. State, 5......
-
Dukes v. State, 97-0767
...relief, we find no authority for Dukes' reasoning. We adopt the reasoning by the Second and Fifth Districts in Sikes v. State, 683 So.2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), and Gentry v. State, 659 So.2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), that the two years for filing a Hale claim by 3.850 motion, commenced on O......
-
Shepherd v. State, 98-01647
...for Hale relief, who were otherwise time-barred, had a deadline of October 14, 1995, to file a rule 3.850 motion. See Sikes v. State, 683 So.2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); see also Dukes v. State, 703 So.2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The trial court, pointing out Shepherd's rule 3.850 filing date......