Jeffrey Linden v. State
The Fourth DCA affirmed the denial of Appellant's rule 3.800(a) motions challenging his PRR sentences under State v. Lewars, reaffirming its prior holding in Sims v. State that Lewars does not apply retroactively to PRR sentences that were already final. The court expressly certified conflict with the Second DCA's decision in Hutchinson v. State, which had held that a Lewars-based illegal sentence claim apparent from the face of the record can be raised at any time via rule 3.800(a) regardless of finality.
Key facts
- Appellant challenged his Prison Release Restitution (PRR) sentences in the trial court via rule 3.800(a) motions, arguing they were illegal under State v. Lewars, which addressed jail-versus-prison release calculations.
- The trial court denied the rule 3.800(a) motions, and Appellant appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion creates an express, certified conflict between the Second and Fourth (and by extension Third and Fifth) DCAs over whether State v. Lewars' PRR/jail-release holding can be raised at any time via rule… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.