State v. Manning
121 So. 3d 1083
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Robert Manning was convicted in 2006 of false imprisonment and felony battery based on a stipulated 2004 misdemeanor battery conviction used as the felony predicate.
- Manning appealed; appellate counsel filed an Anders motion, and this Court affirmed; conviction became final in December 2008.
- Manning filed a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion in 2009 (denied), and appealed. While that appeal was pending, he filed a pro se petition asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for coercing his stipulation to the prior conviction.
- This Court previously denied Manning’s habeas petition, holding the ineffective assistance claims were untimely under Rule 3.850(b) and successive. That ruling constituted law of the case.
- Despite the appellate ruling, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Manning’s petition and granted a new trial; the State appealed that order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could reach Manning’s petition despite this Court previously denying habeas as untimely and successive | Manning argued the petition was also filed under Rule 3.800 or otherwise not time-barred | State argued the petition was time-barred and successive under Rule 3.850 and barred by law of the case | Reversed: the prior appellate denial controlled (law of the case); trial court lacked authority to reconsider |
| Whether Manning could invoke Rule 3.800 to avoid Rule 3.850’s two-year limitation | Manning claimed Rule 3.800 (no time limit) applied to his claims | State maintained Rule 3.800 applies only to illegal sentence/sentencing errors, not ineffective-assistance claims | Rejected: Rule 3.800 inapplicable to ineffective-assistance or instruction claims |
| Whether Manning’s claims were saved from the Rule 3.850 time bar by "manifest injustice" or due process concerns | Manning asserted an exception for manifest injustice/denial of due process | State argued Florida courts enforce Rule 3.850’s two-year bar for such claims | Rejected: courts consistently apply the two-year bar; manifest injustice label does not evade Rule 3.850 |
| Whether habeas relief can be used to circumvent Rule 3.850 limits | Manning sought habeas treatment of his petition | State argued habeas cannot circumvent Rule 3.850 time/waiver rules | Rejected: habeas cannot be used to avoid Rule 3.850 limitations; prior habeas denial mooted trial petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Manning v. State, 993 So.2d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (affirming judgment on Anders appeal)
- Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562 (Fla. 2008) (Rule 3.800 limited to sentencing errors; not a vehicle for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Conionilli v. State, 58 So.3d 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (misadvice-of-counsel claim time-barred under Rule 3.850)
- Sampedro v. State, 10 So.3d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (Rule 3.850 time limits apply to instruction/deportation-related claims)
- Hall v. State, 94 So.3d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ("manifest injustice" label does not automatically overcome Rule 3.850 time bar)
- Johnson v. State, 44 So.3d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (habeas cannot be used to circumvent Rule 3.850 limits)
- Fitchner v. Lifesouth Cmty. Blood Ctrs., Inc., 88 So.3d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (explaining the law-of-the-case doctrine)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for counsel to seek withdrawal when appellate issues are frivolous)