Timothy L. Dallas v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledDecember 15, 2021
Docket1D21-0680
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D21-680
_____________________________
TIMOTHY L. DALLAS,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.
James M. Colaw, Judge.
December 15, 2021
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State, 234 So. 3d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (unpublished table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.
2
(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.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Timothy L. Dallas, pro se, Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant
Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
3