The 2023 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
Kleckley claims that the resentencing judge issued an “oral pronouncement during the de novo resentencing,” which (he says) “superseded the written June 12, 2000 judgment.” Rule 59(e) Motion at 3. Three problems with this. One, under Florida law, “[a] judgment of guilty or not guilty of a felony must be in a written [or electronic] record that is signed by the judge and recorded by the clerk of the court[.]” FLA. STAT. § 921.241(2)(a); see also FLA. R. CRIM. P. 3.670 (“If a defendant is found guilty, a judgment of guilty . . . shall be rendered in open court and in writing, signed by the judge, filed and recorded.” (emphasis added)). So, this supposed “oral pronouncement” could not have qualified as a new judgment. Two, while the resentencing judge did (as Kleckley notes) impose sentence orally on Count 2, he couldn't have issued a new judgment since he didn't re-adjudicate Kleckley “guilty or not guilty” of either count at that hearing. See Resentencing Hr'g Tr. [ECF No. 13-2] at 50-53. Three, the resentencing judge couldn't have superseded the June 12, 2000 judgment as to Count 1 because (again) the resentencing had nothing to do with Count 1.
Per Curiam. AFFIRMED . Cf. Jones v. State , 569 So. 2d 1234, 1238 (Fla. 1990) (finding "no merit" to a claim for relief based on a trial judge's failure to affix the defendant's fingerprints to the judgment of guilt as required by section 921.241, Florida Statutes ).
AFFIRMED. Cf. Jones v. State, 569 So.2d 1234, 1238 (Fla. 1990) (finding "no merit" to a claim for relief based on a trial judge's failure to affix the defendant's fingerprints to the judgment of guilt as required by section 921.241, Florida Statutes).
Next, the fingerprint certifications in rule 3.986 are amended to mirror the updated statutory language of section 921.241(3)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes. See ch. 2021-230, §§ 9-11, Laws of Fla. The new language allows for digital fingerprinting and does not require that fingerprints be taken in the presence of or be certified by a judge. Instead, a court officer, employee of the court, or employee of a criminal justice agency may manually take or electronically capture the defendant's fingerprints and make such certification.
Next, the fingerprint certifications in rule 3.986 are amended to mirror the updated statutory language of section 921.241(3)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes. See ch. 2021-230, §§ 9-11, Laws of Fla. The new language allows for digital fingerprinting and does not require that fingerprints be taken in the presence of or be certified by a 2 judge. Instead, a court officer, employee of the court, or employee of a criminal justice agency may manually take or electronically capture the defendant's fingerprints and make such certification.
Petitioner claims that the Florida Department of Corrections ("FDOC") is not authorized to detain him as a convicted defendant (see ECF No. 4 at 9, 19, 26-29). Petitioner alleges the FDOC's "online inmate locator" indicates he is being detained pursuant to judgments rendered in the Indian River Circuit Court, Case Nos. 2005-CF-1750, 2005-CF-1396, and 2005-CF-1511; however, none of the judgments in those cases contain any evidence of the identity of the defendant, for example, the defendant's fingerprints or social security number ("SSN") as required by Florida Statutes § 921.241 (see ECF No. 4 at 26-29; ECF No. 5 at 2-3). Petitioner argues that the absence of the required identifying information on the Indian River County judgments renders them invalid as a basis for the FDOC to hold him in custody (see ECF No. 4 at 9, 19, 26-29). He contends that he is "actually innocent" of the criminal judgments, and the FDOC is thus subjecting him to false imprisonment, kidnapping, and enslavement, in violation of his federal due process rights (see ECF No. 4 at 9; ECF No. 5 at 2-3; ECF No. 11 at 2-3).
With respect to the first part of the judicial immunity test, the Amended Complaint provides no reason to believe that Judge Raiden was not serving in his judicial capacity at the time of the challenged acts. According to the Plaintiff's allegations, during a criminal proceeding in which he was a defendant, Judge Raiden caused the Plaintiff to be "placed" as a "falsely [sic] convicted Felon" in certain unspecified public records and "willfully fail[ed] to fix the altered records." (Doc. 11 at 4). While the particulars of the acts and the circumstances under which they were taken are not entirely clear, there is no suggestion that Judge Raiden's actions fell outside of his role as a judge. Indeed, certifying that a defendant is guilty of a felony is a normal judicial function. And, Florida law requires judges to attest to such judgments. Fla. Stat. § 921.241(2) ("Every judgment of guilty or not guilty of a felony shall be in writing, signed by the judge, and recorded by the clerk of the court.").
Petitioner admits on the petition form that he previously challenged his 2007 criminal judgment in a § 2254 habeas corpus petition filed in this court. (Doc. 1, p. 12). This court's records, and respondent's exhibits attached to her motion to dismiss, confirm this fact. Petitioner filed his first § 2254 petition challenging the 2007 judgment on March 14, 2013. (See Lewis v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, Case No. 3:13cv119/MCR/EMT, Doc. 1) (copy provided at Doc. 15, Ex. G). The petition was dismissed with prejudice as untimely. (See Case No. 3:13cv119, Docs. 23, 30, 31) (copies provided at Doc. 15, Exs. H, I). The Eleventh Circuit denied a certificate of appealability on April 22, 2015. (See Case No. 3:13cv119, Doc. 44) (copy provided at Doc. 15, Ex. J). Thereafter, petitioner filed in state court a motion for entry of a corrected judgment, asserting that his judgment failed to meet the statutory requirements of Fla. Stat. § 921.241, because his social security number was not affixed to the judgment. (Doc. 15, Ex. K). The state court granted the motion on November 12, 2014, as follows:
We reject the State's argument that the “memo of sentence” serves as a judgment and sentence in this case. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986(a) states that a circuit court “shall” use a judgment and sentence in conformity with the form provided in that rule. The “memo of sentence” is not in conformity with this rule in numerous respects. Perhaps the most important omission is the absence of any place on the form to attach the defendant's fingerprints and to certify that the fingerprints are those of the defendant. In the case of a felony conviction, the fingerprints are required not only by the form but also by statute. See § 921.241, Fla. Stat. (2011). These omissions on the “memo of sentence” are not mere “variations from these forms” that “do not void” a judgment under rule 3.986. This form simply does not constitute a judgment or a sentence even if the form is signed by a judge, which this one apparently was not. This form not only fails to serve as a rendered judgment and sentence for purposes of appeal, but it lacks the information sufficient to authorize the Department of Corrections or a sheriff to detain a person as a convicted defendant because it lacks…
Additionally, much of the related case law, including Keith, dealt with proof of a prior felony conviction, as opposed to a prior misdemeanor conviction. Rule 3.986, which provides a form judgment requiring fingerprints, on its face states that the form “shall be used by all courts.” The rule, however, appears to have been written to comply with chapter 75–23, Laws of Florida, and section 921.241, Florida Statutes (1975), which require fingerprints to be affixed to “every written judgment” reflecting guilt of a “felony.” See In re Fla. Rules of Criminal Procedure, 315 So.2d 172, 172 (Fla.1975).
. . . a felony conviction, the fingerprints are required not only by the form but also by statute, See § 921.241 . . .
. . . rule, however, appears to have been written to comply with chapter 75-23, Laws of Florida, and section 921.241 . . .
. . . record does not contain a formal judgment with appellant’s fingerprints affixed, as required by section 921.241 . . .
. . . Certified judgments are generally admissible in evidence under sections 90.902 and 921.241, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . Chapter 75-23 created section 921.24, Florida Statutes (1975) (currently section 921.241, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . offender or a habitual violent felony offender, the court shall fingerprint the defendant pursuant to s. 921.241 . . .
. . . See § 921.241, Fla.Stat. (1993). . . .
. . . the purpose of identifying the offender, “the court shall fingerprint the defendant pursuant to s. 921.241 . . . Section 921.241(2), Florida Statutes (1991), requires the court to affix the defendant’s fingerprints . . . Section 921.241(3) makes a judgment that complies with section 921.241(2) admissible in court as prima . . . The certified copies of the predicate felonies conformed to section 921.241(2) and were admissible. . . . The fingerprint cards were not, therefore, admissible under section 921.241(3). . . .
. . . The certified copies of judgments and convictions were admissible under Section 921.241, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . The Form for Judgment is amended to add a signature line required by section 921.241, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . merit to Jones’s claim that reversal is mandated because the trial judge failed to comply with section 921.241 . . .
. . . offender or a habitual violent felony offender, the court shall fingerprint the defendant pursuant to s. 921.241 . . .
. . . felony offender or an habitual misde-meanant, the court shall fingerprint the defendant pursuant to s. 921.241 . . .
. . . felony offender or an habitual misde-meanant, the court shall fingerprint the defendant pursuant to s. 921.241 . . .
. . . As a portion of the sentencing process required by section 921.241, Florida Statutes (1981), Mr. . . . Section 921.241(2), further provides: Any such written judgment of guilty of a felony, or a certified . . .
. . . felony offender or an habitual misde-meanant, the court shall fingerprint the defendant pursuant to s. 921.241 . . .
. . . fingerprints are not affixed to the order constituting the judgment and sentence as required by section 921.241 . . .
. . . 1977, but the judgment did not include any fingerprints to connect it to Meehan as required by section 921.241 . . .
. . . felony offender or an habitual misde-meanant, the court shall fingerprint the defendant pursuant to s. 921.241 . . .
. . . and obtaining the fingerprints of appellant on the written judgment of guilt as prescribed by Section 921.241 . . .
. . . Schwartz, Circuit Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, to perform his legal duty under Section 921.241 . . . Section 921.241(1), Florida Statutes, requires judges to have the fingerprints of defendants, convicted . . . Judge Schwartz is directed to comply with Section 921.241, Florida Statutes. . . . J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur. . 921.241 Felony judgments; fingerprints . . . certificate shall be signed by the judge, whose signature thereto shall be followed by the word “Judge.” . 921.241 . . .
. . . certified as to defendant’s fingerprints but not to the judgment and sentence as required by Section 921.241 . . . court for the purpose of imposing judgment and sentence in the manner and form required by Section 921.241 . . .