Lamont Taylor v. State of Florida, 140 So. 3d 526

Lamont Taylor pleaded no contest to multiple drug charges in 2003 and was originally sentenced to 22 years; the Fifth District affirmed on direct appeal.
Taylor filed a pro se Rule 3.850 postconviction motion claiming, among other things, ineffective assistance for permitting double-jeopardy violations; an evidentiary hearing followed.
The trial court’s March 31, 2009 order denied some claims and partially granted relief on the sentencing claim, ordering resentencing because the State had nolle prossed the wrong charge.
Taylor timely moved for rehearing as to the denied claims; while that motion remained undecided, the trial court resentenced him to 15 years and Taylor appealed the resentencing.
The Fifth District dismissed Taylor’s later appeal from the trial court’s denial of other postconviction claims for lack of jurisdiction, relying on its Cervino precedent that a partially granting order requiring resentencing was not final.
The Supreme Court of Florida granted review to resolve a certified conflict among districts about whether a postconviction order that both grants and denies relief is final for appeal when the grant requires subsequent action (e.g., resentencing).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an order that partially grants and partially denies a Rule 3.850 motion is a final, appealable order when the granted relief requires subsequent action (resentencing)	Taylor: The postconviction order disposing of the motion ends the court’s work on the motion and is final for appeal even if resentencing remains	State: Such an order is not final because the granted relief requires further judicial labor in the underlying case; allowing separate appeals encourages piecemeal litigation	Court held: The order is final and appealable; appellate review may proceed despite pending resentencing because postconviction and resentencing are legally distinct proceedings

Cooper v. State, 667 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (an order denying in part and granting in part postconviction relief marks end of judicial labor on motion and is final for appeal)
Slocum v. State, 95 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (same rule applied by First District)
Cervino v. State, 785 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (Fifth District precedent holding such orders not final; disapproved to the extent inconsistent)
Taylor v. State, 96 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (decision under review; certified conflict with Cooper and Slocum)
Keck v. Eminisor, 104 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 2012) (standard of review for pure questions of law is de novo)
In re Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure & the Fla. Rules of Appellate Procedure, 132 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 2013) (rule amendment stating the post‑evidentiary‑hearing order resolves all claims and is final for appeal)
State v. Collins, 985 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 2008) (resentencing is a new, independent proceeding)
Trotter v. State, 825 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2002) (resentencing entitles defendant to a de novo proceeding)