52 So. 3d 1
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- Fessenden appeals a trial court dismissal with prejudice of his petition under the Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act (Act).
- The Act, enacted in 2008, became effective July 2008, and applies to petitions filed by July 1, 2010 for judgments vacated before that date.
- Fessenden filed his petition on February 23, 2009, within the statutory deadline.
- The court vacated Fessenden's judgments and sentences based on this court's legal ruling that the conduct did not constitute the charged offenses, not on exonerating evidence of actual innocence.
- The Court must determine whether a vacatur based on a legal ruling qualifies as exonerating evidence under the Act.
- The trial court dismissed the petition as not fitting the Act's definition of a 'wrongfully incarcerated person,' and the Second District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does vacating a judgment on legal grounds satisfy exonerating evidence? | Fessenden | State | No; vacatur based on legal ruling is not exonerating evidence. |
| Whether Fessenden is a 'wrongfully incarcerated person' under 961.02(4) when the act that served as basis for conviction was found not to be a crime as a matter of law. | Fessenden | State | Not within the Act; conduct was not a criminal act under the relevant law. |
| Whether, given the above, the petition could properly be dismissed for ineligibility under 961.03(4) or otherwise. | Fessenden | State | The petition could be dismissed for lack of a valid basis; the court may dismiss for failure to state a claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amos v. State, 711 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (reversal for lack of proof; question certified on whether conduct constituted theft)
- Fessenden v. State, 713 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (reversal certifying the same question as Amos)
- State v. Amos, 727 So.2d 911 (Fla.1998) (table decision denying review by supreme court)
- Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971) (default/response timing in criminal procedure)
- Merritt v. State, 712 So.2d 384 (Fla.1998) (reversal for nonexistent crime; distinction between actual innocence and not guilty)
- B.B.P. v. State, 841 So.2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversal for nonexistent crime; similar context to actual innocence issue)
- McPhee v. Dade Cnty., 362 So.2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (strict construction of waivers of sovereign immunity)
- Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 908 So.2d 459 (Fla. 2005) (strict construction of legislative waivers of sovereign immunity)