141 So. 3d 627
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that reduced attempted first-degree felony murder to attempted second-degree felony murder; plea form and colloquy repeatedly described the reduced charge as attempted second-degree felony murder.
- The written judgment, however, omitted the word “felony” and stated attempted second-degree murder.
- Defendant did not take a direct appeal and later filed multiple postconviction motions: a timely rule 3.850, a rule 3.800(a), and then the instant (second rule 3.850) motion claiming newly discovered evidence based on the judgment discrepancy.
- The trial court denied the instant rule 3.850 motion as untimely and concluded the newly discovered evidence exception did not apply; it also issued an order to show cause and then barred Defendant from filing future pro se pleadings.
- The State conceded the written-judgment omission was a scrivener’s error and did not object to correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of rule 3.850 motion / newly discovered evidence exception | Motion untimely; written judgment was available before two-year deadline so exception doesn’t apply | Motion timely under newly discovered evidence because Defendant only discovered discrepancy in 2009 | Court: Motion untimely; newly discovered evidence exception does not apply; affirm denial |
| Scrivener’s error in written judgment (felony omitted) | N/A (State agreed correction appropriate) | Judgment incorrectly omitted “felony,” inconsistent with plea agreement and colloquy | Court: Remand for limited correction of judgment to add “felony” to reflect plea agreement |
| Order barring future pro se filings | Court invoked Spencer authority to limit filings for judicial economy | Defendant argued filings were few, non-frivolous, and in good faith; discrepancy was legitimate issue | Court: Reversed the bar as an abuse of discretion; three postconviction filings did not justify an extreme sanction |
Key Cases Cited
- Spencer v. State, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999) (framework for limiting repetitive pro se filings)
- Schultheis v. State, 125 So.3d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (written judgment availability defeats newly discovered evidence claim)
- Bivins v. State, 35 So.3d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (judicial economy supports curbing abusive filings)
- Martin v. Stewart, 588 So.2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (bar on pro se filings is an extreme remedy)
- Mims v. State, 994 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (same principle regarding extreme sanction)
- Jordan v. State, 36 So.3d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (vacating bar where successive filings were not repetitive and appeared made in good faith)