Taylor v. State
96 So. 3d 989
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Taylor appeals the denial of his 3.850 postconviction motion after an evidentiary hearing and this Court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- Taylor pled no contest to four counts and was sentenced to 22 years; direct appeal affirmed.
- Taylor filed a four-ground postconviction motion; the trial court denied Grounds 1 and 2 and held an evidentiary hearing on Grounds 3 and 4; the State conceded a resentencing on Ground 3 due to a double jeopardy issue.
- The March 31, 2009 order granted part relief (resentencing) and denied Ground 4; Ground 3 involved corrected nolle prosequi, affecting the minimum guideline sentence.
- Taylor was resentenced to 15 years on April 21, 2009; he appealed, and the appellate court affirmed the new sentence in 2011.
- Taylor later filed amended/rehearing/clarification motions and notices of appeal, which the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, citing Cervino v. State and related authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality of the March 31, 2009 order | Taylor contends the order is a final, appealable disposition of at least part of the motion. | State argues the order is not final and thus not appealable under Cervino. | Not final; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Impact of Cervino on appealability | Taylor relies on Cooper to support appealability of partial grant/denial with subsequent action. | State relies on Cervino to require complete disposition before appeal and to prohibit piecemeal appeals. | Cervino governs; the order is not appealable. |
| Timing to appeal after resentencing | Taylor could appeal after resentencing rather than from the March 2009 order. | Resentencing does not render the original postconviction order immediately appealable under Cervino. | Taylor should have raised issues in an appeal from the resentencing; current appeal dismissed. |
| Effect of untimely rehearing on appellate rights | Timely rehearing filings toll or preserve rights to appeal the March 2009 order. | Delays and untimely filings do not cure lack of finality; belated relief was not available. | Taylor lost belated appeal remedies; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Libertelli v. State, 775 So.2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (non-final postconviction orders denying some grounds and setting others for hearing are not immediately appealable)
- Diaz v. State, 686 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (distinguishes appealability of mixed postconviction orders)
- Gowins v. State, 662 So.2d 1348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (early rule on finality and piecemeal appeals in postconviction context)
- Cooper v. State, 667 So.2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (permissibility of appeal from partial grant/denial with subsequent action on resentencing)
- Cervino v. State, 785 So.2d 631 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (partial postconviction orders are not final; freedom to appeal after complete disposition)
- State v. Huerta, 38 So.3d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (rejects untimely appeal from earlier postconviction order when resentencing occurs)
- Rudolf v. State, 821 So.2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (3.800 motion does not create a separate proceeding; appealability hinges on finality)
- Slocum v. State, 95 So.3d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction in resentencing-related postconviction appeal)
- Jordan v. State, 81 So.3d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (timeliness of reconsideration vs. resentencing interplay in postconviction appeals)
- White v. State, 450 So.2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (finality principles for postconviction orders and piecemeal appeals)