ANTHONY STRONG
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 appellate court affirmed a lower court's decision to dismiss a defendant's motion for resentencing. The court held that the trial court retained jurisdiction to reconsider its prior order granting resentencing, even after the State failed to appeal that initial order.
Yes, the trial court retained jurisdiction to reconsider its prior order granting the motion for resentencing. The order granting relief under rule 3.800(a) is not considered final or appealable until resentencing has occurred.
[1] An order granting postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is not final or appealable until resentencing has occurred, and the trial court…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An order granting postconviction relief under rule 3.800(a) is not final or appealable until resentencing has occurred. Until then, the trial court retains jurisdiction and has the inherent authority to reconsider an order granting relief under rule 3.800(a);”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for why the trial court retained jurisdiction to reconsider its prior order.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnthony Strong, convicted in 1991, sought resentencing under Miller v. Alabama. The trial court initially granted his motion. However, after a signifi…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Resentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Anthony Strong seeks a written opinion of this court's per curiam affirmance that was issued without a written opinion. The order on appeal is affirmed, and we address only the concerns raised by Strong in the motion for written opinion. In 1991, Strong was convicted of first-degree felony murder (count one) and attempted robbery with a firearm (count two) following a jury trial. He was
- 2 - sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years on count one and to fifteen years' imprisonment with a three-year mandatory minimum term on count two. Strong was sixteen when he committed the crimes. In 2016, Strong filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedural 3.800(a) motion arguing that he was entitled to be resentenced pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016).
The trial court granted the motion, and the State did not appeal that ruling. Almost two years later, the resentencing still had not occurred and the State filed a motion to dismiss or for summary denial of Strong's motion for resentencing.
The trial court determined that since Atwell was no longer good law in light of Franklin v. State, 258 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 2018), and State v. Michel, 257 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 2018), Strong was no longer entitled to be resentenced.
The trial court therefore entered an order granting the State's motion.
On appeal, Strong challenges the order granting the State's motion, arguing in pertinent part that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its prior ruling regarding his motion for resentencing. For the reasons expressed in Morgan v. State, 45 Fla.
L. Weekly D791 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 3, 2020), we affirm. We also certify conflict with Magill v. State, 287 So. 3d 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), Jones v. State, 279 So. 3d 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019), and the cases which rely upon Jones to conclude that orders granting rule 3.800(a) motions are appealable by the State prior to resentencing and that where no appeal is taken the trial court loses jurisdiction to reconsider its ruling.1 1In Morgan, this court also certified conflict with Simmons v. State, 274 So. 3d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), and Jordan v. State, 81 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).
However, on May 1, 2020, the First District receded from those decisions. See Rogers
- 3 - Affirmed; conflict certified. KHOUZAM, C.J., and VILLANTI and BLACK, JJ., Concur. v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1069, D1072 (Fla. 1st DCA May 1, 2020) (en banc) ("An order granting postconviction relief under rule 3.800(a) is not final or appealable until resentencing has occurred. Until then, the trial court retains jurisdiction and has the inherent authority to reconsider an order granting relief under rule 3.800(a)."); see also Baldwin v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1367, D1367 (Fla. 1st DCA June 3, 2020).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Strong v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D791 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)
-
Smith v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
-
State v. Morales (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012)
- Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016)
- State v. Budry Michel, 257 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 2018)
- Franklin v. State, 258 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 2018)
- Lamont Taylor v. State, 140 So. 3d 526 (Fla. 2014)
- Jordan v. State, 81 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Strong v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D791 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)
- Smith v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)