Linden v. State
The Fourth DCA affirmed denial of Linden's rule 3.800(a) motions challenging his PRR sentences under State v. Lewars, holding that Lewars does not apply retroactively to sentences that were already final when Lewars was decided. The court reaffirmed its earlier holding in Sims v. State that a Witt retroactivity analysis applies to rule 3.800(a) illegal-sentence claims, and expressly certified conflict with the Second DCA's decision in Hutchinson v. State, which allowed retroactive application of Lewars via 3.800(a) when the illegality is apparent from the face of the record.
Key facts
- Linden sought to challenge his PRR (Prison Release Restitution) sentences as illegal under State v. Lewars through rule 3.800(a) motions, but his sentences had already become final before Lewars was decided in 2018.
- The trial court denied Linden's rule 3.800(a) motions, and Linden appealed to the Fourth DCA.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion creates an express, acknowledged district conflict on whether Lewars-based PRR illegality claims can be raised at any time under rule 3.800(a) regardless of finality, or whether Witt retroactivity… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
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.