Jordan v. State
81 So. 3d 595
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Jordan appeals a postconviction denial under rule 3.800(a) for a second time after remand; first appeal reversed for lack of conclusively refuting documents; remand granted motion and stated a separate resentencing hearing would occur; the original resentencing was not completed due to judge’s death; State moved for reconsideration untimely after a long interval; second judge granted reconsideration and denied the motion; State conceded untimeliness and lack of jurisdiction; this Court issued a Toler order to address timeliness; this appeal involves finality of the first judge’s order and proper remedy upon untimely reconsideration; this Court quashes and remands with instructions to reinstate the first order and resentence Jordan.
- Arguments and procedural posture show the State conceded timeliness issues and that the second judge exceeded jurisdiction by entertaining an untimely motion; the court treats the first 3.800(a) order as a final order; the appropriate remedy is reinstatement of the first order and resentencing.
- The first judge’s 3.800(a) order ended the postconviction proceeding; the second judge’s order was void for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely reconsideration; the proper outcome is to reinstate the first order and resentence Jordan.
- Remand directs trial court to reinstate the first judge’s order and resentence Jordan; jurisdiction concerns govern the outcome; the State’s concession confirms error in the second judge’s action.
- This decision cites finality and appealability of postconviction orders and the timeliness rule under 3.800(b)(1)(B).
- The opinion concludes with Quashed and Remanded with directions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the second judge have jurisdiction to reconsider the first order? | Jordan | State | No; untimely motion deprived jurisdiction |
| Is the first judge’s 3.800(a) order a final order subject to review only by rehearing or appeal? | State and Jordan | State | Yes; final order subject to timely challenge |
| What is the proper remedy on appeal? | Remand to resentence | Remand with reinstatement of first order | Quash and remand to reinstate first order and resentence |
| Is the State bound by the concession of timeliness? | State asserts untimely but concedes | State concedes untimely and lack of jurisdiction | Yes; concession controls outcome |
| Does this ruling affect postconviction finality principles in Florida? | Florida finality governs review | Finality supports timely challenges | Yes; reinforces finality and proper vehicle for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. White, 470 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1985) (postconviction relief order ending collateral proceedings is appealable by the state)
- Jones v. State, 35 So.3d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (resentencing after a 3.800(a) motion is de novo)
- Toler v. State, 493 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (court may address untimely motions under supervisory order)
- State v. Huerta, 38 So.3d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (multiple districts' views on 3.800 proceedings)
- Adams v. State, 949 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (3.800 cases; third district guidance)
- State v. Rudolf, 821 So.2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (remedies and limits on postconviction relief)
- State v. Delvalle, 745 So.2d 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (interpretation of finality in collateral relief)
- Lormeus v. State, 10 So.3d 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (distinguishing finality and timeliness in 3.800 proceedings)