Hilbert v. State, 661 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). · Go Syfert
Hilbert v. State, 661 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to rule 3.800 challenging the validity of conviction and not the legality of sentence must be properly treated as a motion pursuant to rule 3.850 and not rule 3.800.”
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Rivas v. State (fladistctapp, 2010-09-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Rivas v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to rule 3.800 challenging the validity of conviction and not the legality of sentence must be properly treated as a motion pursuant to rule 3.850 and not rule 3.800.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Doyle v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Rivas v. State, 43 So.3d 154, 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Hilbert v. State, 661 So.2d 895, 895-96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
cited Cited "see" Vilorio v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hilbert v. State, 661 So.2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
Daniel HILBERT
v.
The STATE of Florida
No. 95-1860.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct 11, 1995.
661 So. 2d 895
Daniel Hilbert, in proper person., Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Avi J. Litwin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Goderich, Green, Hubbart.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 82%
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (1)
PER CURIAM.

By way of a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence brought pursuant to Rule 3.800, Fla.R.Crim.P., appellant Daniel Hilbert seeks to challenge the validity of his 1990 conviction and sentence for escape. Based upon the holding of Munn v. State, 573 So.2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), Hilbert argues that where he was in a supervised release status and not confined as that term is defined in section 945.091(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1989),[1] he could not properly be convicted of escape. We find that Hilbert’s challenge to the validity of his conviction for escape must be properly treated as a motion[*896] for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P. rather than Rule 3.800 which confines itself to relief from illegal sentences. See Wiley v. State, 604 So.2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73, 76-77 (Fla. 2d DCA) (en banc), rev. denied, 613 So.2d 5 (Fla.1992). Hence, since this is really a 3.850 motion to vacate a 1990 conviction based upon Hilbert’s claim of innocence to the escape charge, we find that it is time-barred because it was filed more than two years after the conviction became final; the defendant was sentenced on November 4, 1990, but did not file his motion until March 22, 1995. We further note that the motion does not qualify as an exception to the two year time-bar. See Rule 3.850(b), Fla. R.Crim.P.

Affirmed.

1

Section 945.091(l)(d) states in pertinent part that "[w]hile in a supervised release status, the inmate shall not be considered to be in the care and custody of the department or in confinement, extended or otherwise."