Background
Kevin Terrell Thomas was convicted in St. Lucie County. In 2021, the Fourth DCA reversed his sentence and remanded for resentencing. See Thomas v. State, 324 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). While Thomas awaited resentencing pursuant to the appellate mandate, he filed a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
The trial court ruled on the merits of the 3.850 motion. Thomas appealed the order denying his motion. The State conceded that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion because it was premature—filed before resentencing was complete.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth DCA accepted the State’s concession of error and reversed. The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on Thomas’s Rule 3.850 motion because it was filed while Thomas awaited resentencing pursuant to the 2021 appellate mandate. On remand, the court directed the trial court to dismiss the motion as premature.
The court explained the governing rule: “finality for purposes of filing a rule 3.850 motion occurs after resentencing when resentencing flows from a direct appeal.” The court cited State v. Gomez, 247 So. 3d 592, 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“a conviction and sentence become final for the purposes of rule 3.850 when this Court affirms following resentencing”) and Ross v. State, 947 So. 2d 699, 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (holding that a rule 3.850 motion was timely filed based on the date of resentencing, not the original sentence).
Key Takeaways
- A conviction and sentence do not become “final” for purposes of Rule 3.850 until after resentencing is complete when resentencing was ordered on direct appeal. A 3.850 motion filed before resentencing is premature and must be dismissed.
- Trial courts lack jurisdiction to rule on premature 3.850 motions. Any ruling on the merits of such a motion is void and will be reversed on appeal.
- The two-year limitations period for filing a 3.850 motion begins running from the date of resentencing (or when the mandate affirming the resentencing issues), not from the date of the original conviction and sentence.
- Pro se defendants awaiting resentencing should be advised to wait until resentencing is complete before filing postconviction motions, or risk having their claims dismissed without prejudice—potentially losing favorable timing or evidence.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces an important jurisdictional boundary in Florida’s postconviction framework. For criminal defense attorneys with clients who have been remanded for resentencing, the practical guidance is clear: do not file a 3.850 motion until resentencing is complete. A premature filing wastes judicial resources and, more importantly, may prejudice the defendant if claims are dismissed without prejudice and must be refiled under a tighter timeline.
The case also illustrates the proper use of the State’s confession of error mechanism. Rather than litigating the merits, the State recognized the jurisdictional defect and conceded, allowing the court to resolve the issue efficiently. Prosecutors encountering premature 3.850 filings should consider raising the jurisdictional issue at the trial level to avoid unnecessary appellate proceedings.