LEROY JENNINGS, II, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the motion to correct the judgment and sentence was properly denied because the sentence was not illegal and the time for seeking modification had expired.
Appellant was convicted of robbery with a firearm and sentenced to 30 years. He filed a motion to correct his judgment, arguing the offense was improp…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of the denial of a "Motion to Correct Judgment and Sentence” filed pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800. We affirm the order appealed.
Appellant was convicted and sentenced in 1983 to a 30 year term of imprisonment for the offense of robbery with a firearm or deadly weapon. By a “Motion to Correct Judgment and Sentence” filed in 1985, appellant asserted that the offense had been improperly designated as a life felony, rather than a first degree felony, on the judgment form. Suggesting that this circumstance may have led to an improper exercise of sentencing discretion since the 30 year term imposed is the minimum penalty for a life felony, appellant requested resentencing.
Appellant’s motion referenced Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(a), which provides for correction of an illegal sentence “at any time.” However, the 30 year term imposed in the present case is within the lawful limit for the offense of robbery with a firearm or deadly weapon, see §§ 812.-13(2)(a), and 775.082(3)(b), Florida Statutes, and appellant’s sentence is therefore not illegal. Insofar as appellant is seeking to have the court revisit its sentencing discretion, relief should have been sought pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(b), which provides for reduction or modification of a legal sentence. Cf., Bolt v. State, 376 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). However, Rule 3.800(b) expressly limits the time for such action to “within sixty days” after imposition of sentence or disposition of a direct appeal. Appellant’s motion indicates that it was filed beyond this sixty day period, and the court’s authority to grant relief pursuant to Rule 3.800(b) had thus expired. See State v. Mancil, 354 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The motion was therefore properly denied.
The order appealed is affirmed.
SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Neilsen Arelen Wilhelm v. State, 543 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…the remaining counts. The trial court’s modification was not valid under rule 3.800(a) because the underlying sentence was legal and the rule extends the authority to change a sentence at any time only if the sentence is illegal. Jennings v. State, 478 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1986). In addition, the trial court’s modification was not valid under rule 3.800(b) because the modification was made well beyond the sixty days allowed under that rule. Id. at 1110. This matt…
-
Chanquet v. State, 646 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…1364, 1365 (Fla. 1993); State v. F.G., 630 So. 2d 581, 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), opinion adopted, 638 So. 2d 515 (Fla.1994); Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73, 76-77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (en banc), review denied, 613 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1992); Jennings v. State, 478 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1986). Assuming, without deciding, that defendant’s second issue is cognizable under Rule 3.800(a), the defendant’s argument is without merit. The offense of burglary of a conveyance with an as…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Carlie Nolan Mancil, Jr., 354 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Bolt v. State, 376 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Greene v. State, 376 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)