CHANCY MALLORY v. STATE OF FLORIDA ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •        DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FOURTH DISTRICT
    CHANCY MALLORY,
    Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    No. 4D19-1222
    [July 10, 2019]
    Appeal of order denying rule 3.800(a) motion from the Circuit Court for
    the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Martin S. Fein, Judge;
    L.T. Case No. 14-6917CF10A.
    Chancy Mallory, Bristol, pro se.
    No appearance required for appellee.
    PER CURIAM.
    Chancy Mallory appeals an order dismissing his motion to correct
    illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
    3.800(a). We affirm but write to clarify the procedural differences between
    dismissing successive rule 3.800(a) and rule 3.850 motions.
    Mallory argues that his mandatory minimum twenty-year prison
    sentence for attempted second-degree murder is illegal because section
    775.087, Florida Statutes, the 10-20-Life statute, does not apply to
    attempted second-degree murder. His argument is without merit. See
    Hatten v. State, 
    203 So. 3d 142
    (Fla. 2016).
    Mallory has raised the same argument in prior motions. The trial court
    properly denied the first motion on the merits. The trial court dismissed
    the subsequent motions, including the motion at issue, as successive
    under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(h). Although dismissal
    was proper, the trial court should have dismissed the motion under rule
    3.800(a)(2).
    Rule 3.850(h)(2) permits a trial court to dismiss a successive
    postconviction motion under rule 3.850 in the following circumstances:
    (2) A second or successive motion is an extraordinary
    pleading. Accordingly, a court may dismiss a second or
    successive motion if the court finds that it fails to allege new
    or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was
    on the merits or, if new and different grounds are alleged, the
    judge finds that the failure of the defendant or the attorney to
    assert those grounds in a prior motion constituted an abuse
    of the procedure or there was no good cause for the failure of
    the defendant or defendant’s counsel to have asserted those
    grounds in a prior motion. When a motion is dismissed under
    this subdivision, a copy of that portion of the files and records
    necessary to support the court’s ruling shall accompany the
    order denying the motion.
    In contrast, rule 3.800(a)(2) permits dismissal of a successive motion to
    correct illegal sentence if it “fails to allege new or different grounds for relief
    and the prior determination was on the merits.” Fla. R. Crim. P.
    3.800(a)(2). “There is no prohibition to the filing of successive rule 3.800(a)
    motions so long as the merits of the issue presented have not previously
    been addressed . . . .” Perez v. State, 
    20 So. 3d 440
    , 442 (Fla. 4th DCA
    2009); see also State v. McBride, 
    848 So. 2d 287
    , 290 (Fla. 2003) (footnote
    omitted) (“Although res judicata may not apply to motions filed under rule
    3.800, the similar, but more narrow, doctrine of collateral estoppel, or
    issue preclusion, does apply.”).
    The trial court correctly dismissed Mallory’s successive rule 3.800(a)
    motion to correct an illegal sentence because it failed to allege new or
    different grounds for relief, and Mallory’s argument had previously been
    denied on the merits. This was a dismissal based on rule 3.800(a) and not
    rule 3.850(h)(2).
    Affirmed.
    WARNER, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
    *         *          *
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-1222

Filed Date: 7/10/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/10/2019