Background
Curry Lamont Hawkins appealed an order granting in part and denying in part his motion to correct sentencing errors under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). The motion concerned a January 9, 2023 postconviction order that vacated improperly enhanced life sentences for attempted first-degree murder and burglary with assault or battery, but resentenced Hawkins to life imprisonment for those offenses.
In the order on appeal, the trial court reduced those two life sentences to guidelines sentences of twenty-two years’ imprisonment each. Hawkins challenged only the refusal to resentence him on his armed-robbery conviction, for which he was serving a life sentence. He argued that the sentence rested on a judge, rather than a jury, finding that he qualified as a habitual felony offender under Erlinger v. United States, and alternatively that the armed-robbery sentence should be revisited as part of a multi-count sentencing package.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed the denial of relief on the Erlinger claim. Relying on the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Wainwright v. State, the court held that Erlinger does not apply retroactively to a sentence that was already final when Erlinger was issued.
The court also rejected Hawkins’s sentencing-package argument. Hawkins conceded that the panel was bound by the Third District’s decision in Reynolds v. State, which rejected a similar argument. The court therefore affirmed the order insofar as it denied resentencing on the armed-robbery conviction.
Key Takeaways
- Erlinger does not apply retroactively to sentences that were already final when that decision issued.
- Under binding Third District precedent, resentencing on some counts does not require resentencing another count merely because the sentences allegedly formed a multi-count package.
- A Rule 3.800(b) motion must identify the alleged sentencing error with specificity; the appellate court declined to consider an additional basis for relief that Hawkins had not raised in his motion.
Why It Matters
The decision limits the avenues for defendants with final habitual-offender sentences to obtain relief based on Erlinger. It also confirms that, in the Third District, obtaining resentencing on some convictions does not by itself reopen a sentence on another conviction under a sentencing-package theory.
The opinion notes that a similar sentencing-package issue is pending before the Florida Supreme Court following certification of a question of great public importance in another case, but the Third District remained bound by its existing precedent.