HAMPTON v. STATE (2020)

Alonzo Hampton appeals the summary dismissal of his postconviction motion brought under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.

Hampton was convicted and sentenced for attempted robbery with a firearm, attempted felony murder, and aggravated battery with a firearm. We affirmed his judgment and sentence on direct appeal, with mandate issuing on June 6, 2001. Hampton v. State, 787 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Over a decade later, Hampton filed a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The postconviction court granted the motion in part and resentenced him on the attempted robbery and aggravated battery convictions. The next year, Hampton filed the instant rule 3.850 motion, seeking relief from his convictions based on claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The postconviction court dismissed the motion as untimely, reasoning that it was filed more than two years after his convictions became final. This appeal followed.

Subject to certain exceptions that do not apply here, a rule 3.850 motion must be filed within two years after the judgment and sentence become final. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b). The clock begins to run when direct review proceedings have concluded. See Baggett v. State, 637 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

In this case, Hampton had two years from June 6, 2001, to file his rule 3.850 motion, yet he filed it almost eighteen years later. That he was resentenced after obtaining collateral relief did not restart the clock for him to raise a postconviction challenge to his underlying convictions. Compare Joseph v. State, 835 So. 2d 1221, 1222 n.3 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“An illegal sentence may be corrected at any time, and it would make no sense to allow a judgment to be attacked many years after the expiration of the two-year deadline simply because a sentence was corrected pursuant to a rule 3.800(a) motion.”) with Rogers v. State, 25 So. 3d 636, 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“Where a court of this state grants relief to a defendant which ultimately results in an amended judgment being entered, as to any new issues raised by entry of the amended judgment, the time period for filing a rule 3.850 motion begins to run at the time of the amended judgment.”).

We thus affirm the order on review. We also warn Hampton about frivolous, repetitive, or abusive litigation in this Court. Such conduct may lead to the imposition of sanctions, including a prohibition against any further pro se filings and a referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures as provided in section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2019).

Affirmed.

Ray, C.J.

B.L. Thomas and Kelsey, JJ., concur.