ROLLINS v. STATE (2020)

Appellant, Jonathan Rollins, challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

In his motion, Rollins claimed that his prior convictions did not qualify him for a Habitual Felony Offender (HFO) sentence. The postconviction court denied the motion, relying on Rollins's stipulation that he qualified as an HFO when he entered his plea to the underlying charges. In light of this stipulation, the postconviction court properly observed that an evidentiary hearing would be required to adjudicate the claim. See White v. State, 60 So. 3d 1101, 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Thus, Rollins's claim was not cognizable under rule 3.800(a) and he should have sought relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See id.

Though properly recognizing Rollins's use of an improper vehicle to raise his claim, the postconviction court erred by simply dismissing the motion. Because the motion was filed within the time limits allowed by rule 3.850, the court should have treated it as a facially insufficient rule 3.850 motion, struck it as such, and given Rollins an opportunity to amend. See Duncan v. State, 259 So. 3d 926, 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018); see also Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. (“[N]o cause shall be dismissed because an improper remedy has been sought.”).

Accordingly, we reverse the order summarily denying Rollins's motion. Upon remand, Rollins's motion shall be stricken as facially insufficient under rule 3.850, and he shall be allowed sixty days to amend, provided that he can do so in good faith. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2); Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754, 761 (Fla. 2007).

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

PER CURIAM.

ORFINGER, COHEN, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.