Opinion
No. 1D21-680
12-15-2021
Timothy L. DALLAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Timothy L. Dallas, pro se, Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Timothy L. Dallas, pro se, Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Per Curiam.
Timothy L. Dallas appeals an order summarily denying his postconviction motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Following his 2016 jury trial and convictions for trafficking cocaine and possession of a controlled substance, the trial court sentenced Dallas to twenty years in prison on the first count and five years on the second, to be served concurrently.
In his rule 3.800(a) motion, Dallas alleged that the trial court showed bias against him and was vindictive in imposing his sentence. These claims fail for two reasons. First, the purpose of rule 3.800(a) is to correct errors in the sentence, not in the sentencing process. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a) (allowing a court to correct an illegal sentence or an incorrect calculation made in a sentencing scoresheet); Collier v. State , 148 So. 3d 797, 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (holding that a claim of error in the sentencing process cannot be raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion). Claims of vindictive sentencing and bias are not errors in the sentence itself, but errors in the sentencing process. Rosado v. State , 129 So. 3d 1104, 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) ; Cammilleri v. State , 779 So. 2d 551, 551 (Fla 2d DCA 2001). Thus, the trial court did not err in summarily denying these claims. Second, even if considered under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, Dallas’ postconviction motion was untimely. Rule 3.850 requires, with certain exceptions, that defendants seeking postconviction relief under the rule file their motion within two years of their judgment and sentencing becoming final. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b) ; Sadler v. State , 141 So. 3d 1266, 1268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Dallas’ judgment and sentence became final in October 2017, after the mandate issued in his direct appeal. See Dallas v. State , 234 So. 3d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (unpublished table decision). No exception applies here, so Dallas had to file his rule 3.850 motion no later than October 2019. Because Dallas did not file the motion until 2021, it was untimely. And thus the trial court properly denied relief.
This is the third petition or appeal Dallas has filed in this Court over the past two years collaterally attacking his judgment and sentence in Alachua County Circuit Court Case Number 2014-CF-003887-A. He filed a petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in 2019. This Court denied the petition. Dallas v. State , 307 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (unpublished table decision). In 2020, he appealed the trial court's order denying his postconviction motion filed under rule 3.850. This Court affirmed per curiam. Dallas v. State , 310 So. 3d 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (unpublished table decision). And in 2021, Dallas filed the instant appeal of the order denying his rule 3.800(a) motion.
In none of these petitions or appeals has Dallas obtained any relief. And this appeal is frivolous. Dallas is warned that any future filing that this Court determines to be frivolous may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a prohibition against any further pro se filings in this Court and a referral to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2020) ; Ferris v. State , 100 So. 3d 142, 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (Wetherell, J., concurring) ("[T]here comes a point after which a defendant's use of the appellate process to continue to litigate postconviction claims becomes an abuse of the process").
AFFIRMED .
Rowe, C.J., and Osterhaus and Winokur, JJ., concur.