Court Opinion

ID: 9902578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:20:16.996596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:54.641763
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                       Case No. 5D23-0256
                   LT Case No. 2008-MM-32031
                  _____________________________

ANTHONY VIRGINIA,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                  _____________________________

3.850 appeal from the County Court for Duval County.
Roberto Arias, Judge.

Anthony Virginia, Wewahitchka, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

                         October 13, 2023

KILBANE, J.

       Appellant, Anthony Virginia, appeals the summary denial of
his claim for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.850. The motion alleged that the trial court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his petit theft charge
because it took place on the Jacksonville Naval Air Station, which
he contends is “exclusively federal land and jurisdiction.” He
further asserted that the petit theft conviction prejudiced him
because it was scored on his sentencing scoresheet for a
subsequent felony resulting in a life sentence. Without attaching
any records to refute Appellant’s claim, the trial court summarily
denied Appellant’s rule 3.850 motion because subject matter
jurisdiction should have been raised on direct appeal and the petit
theft did not impact his sentence in the felony case. We reverse.

     First, this Court has explained that a lack of subject matter
jurisdiction can be raised at any time. Wardell v. State, 944 So. 2d
1089, 1091 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); see also Davis v. State, 998 So. 2d
1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Gunn v. State, 947 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2006); Harris v. State, 854 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
Thus, Appellant’s claim is not barred. See Cesaire v. State, 811 So.
2d 816, 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“[A]n order entered without
subject matter jurisdiction is void.”).

     Second, although the trial court concluded that Appellant was
not prejudiced, the court did not attach records to its order
supporting this contention. See Kimbrough v. State, 886 So. 2d
965, 981 (Fla. 2004) (explaining that “[t]o uphold the trial court’s
summary denial of claims raised in a 3.850 motion, the claims
must be either facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the
record” and that “where no evidentiary hearing is held below, we
must accept the defendant’s factual allegations to the extent they
are not refuted by the record” (quoting Peede v. State, 748 So. 2d
253, 257 (Fla. 1999))).

    Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of
Appellant’s motion. On remand, the trial court is directed to either
hold an evidentiary hearing or to attach portions of the record
conclusively demonstrating that Appellant is not entitled to relief.
See Dungey v. State, 359 So. 3d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023).

    REVERSED and REMANDED.

EDWARDS, C.J., and EISNAUGLE, J., concur.

                                 2
          _____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
           _____________________________

                       3