Published opinions, and the briefing behind them.
Each matter below is public record. The filings were researched and drafted by Jabe Carney as a certified inmate law clerk in the Florida Department of Corrections law library program, for litigants representing themselves, who filed them in their own names. The results belong to the courts that reached them, and are described here as the opinions describe them.
Published opinions are the smaller part of this work. Most of it resolved in circuit court — sentences corrected, jail credit awarded, resentencing granted — where orders are not published and cannot be shown here. Confidential client information and nonpublic work for attorney clients are not disclosed here.
Howard v. State
A juvenile offender serving a parole-eligible life sentence sought resentencing in a pro se postconviction motion. The matter ran six years, through the Supreme Court of Florida and back, and ended in an en banc decision receding from the Second District's own precedent.
Where it started
The underlying motion was filed pro se in 2014, before Miller had been held retroactive in Florida. It invoked Rule 3.850(b)(2) first and Rule 3.800(a) second. Neither Falcon nor Montgomery had been decided, and there was no settled answer about which rule applied. Seven years later that choice was the argument the Second District accepted en banc.
A footnote in the same motion set section 947.18, which forbids parole “merely as a reward for good conduct,” against Graham’s requirement of a meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation, and argued the statute could not survive as applied to juvenile offenders. The Supreme Court of Florida took up the same problem two years later in Atwell.
On appeal from the denial of that motion, Judge Altenbernd wrote separately that “Mr. Howard’s story is extraordinary and is worth telling.” Howard v. State, 180 So. 3d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).
Where the briefing shows in the opinion
The State conceded that the trial court could not disregard the mandate. It argued instead that because the underlying motion invoked Rule 3.800, the order granting resentencing was never final and could be rescinded.
The reply brief, handwritten and filed in October 2020, answered that argument: the motion met the pleading requirements of Rule 3.850, so the 2016 order was a final order the trial court had no jurisdiction to revisit, as in Croft v. State. In footnote 3, the en banc court rejected the State's position on that ground and cited Croft.
A supplemental brief filed in December 2020 brought the court two Supreme Court of Florida decisions issued the previous month, State v. Okafor and State v. Jackson. Both were four weeks old and had not yet reached the permanent reporters; the brief cites them to Florida Law Weekly. The en banc court held that Okafor controls, and receded from Marshall II.
One motion, two published opinions, and an en banc reversal that turned on the rule the motion invoked. All three filings are below, in order.
Jabe Carney researched and drafted all of the appellant's pro se filings in this matter, from the postconviction motion through Supreme Court review and the en banc appeal, while serving as a certified inmate law clerk. Howard filed them in his own name.
Juvenile sentencing and sentence enhancement.
Appeal from the denial of a juvenile offender's motion for sentence review under Rule 3.802 and section 921.1402. The Fifth District held the order erroneous for two reasons: it lacked the written findings required by section 921.1402(7) and Rule 3.802(d)(2), and the summary denial did not attach records conclusively refuting the claims. The court reversed, remanded for a sentence review, and directed that the review be conducted by a different judge.
Appeal from the summary denial of a pro se Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging a habitual-felony-offender enhancement on the ground that one predicate conviction was a misdemeanor, not a felony. The State conceded that the postconviction court had not conclusively refuted the claim. The First District reversed and remanded for the court to attach refuting records or resentence.
Appeal from the summary denial of a pro se Rule 3.850 motion raising five grounds. The Fifth District affirmed as to four. On the fifth, it held the record did not conclusively refute the claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s comments on the law applicable to sentencing, and reversed for attachment of refuting records or an evidentiary hearing. On remand, the court granted relief on that ground after an evidentiary hearing and ordered resentencing.
These descriptions summarize published opinions for background only. Past results do not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other matter. Every matter turns on its own record and law, and every filing Justice Insight prepares is reviewed and signed by supervising counsel, who remains responsible for it.
Have a record that needs this kind of reading?
Send the matter and the deadline. You'll hear back within one business day.