DANTE R. MORRIS
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 reversed a trial court's decision to rescind a resentencing order. The trial court had initially granted a new sentencing hearing but later rescinded it, which the appellate court found to be an error, ordering resentencing.
The trial court erred in rescinding its order granting a new sentencing hearing. Once a mandate ordering resentencing issues, the original sentence is a nullity and cannot be recalled.
[1] Once a mandate ordering resentencing issues and becomes final, the original sentence becomes a nullity and cannot be recalled or rescinded by the trial court, even if int…
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“Regardless of whether there has been intervening case law, the judgment ordering resentencing "is final and no longer subject to reconsideration."”
Establishes that the trial court cannot reconsider a final judgment ordering resentencing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDante R. Morris sought resentencing based on a new law. After initial denial and appeals, the Florida Supreme Court remanded for resentencing. The tri…
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 Mandate Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Dante R. Morris appeals the trial court's order rescinding its "order on remand," which granted Mr. Morris a new sentencing
hearing, and reinstating its order denying Mr. Morris' motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). The State has conceded error.
We reverse the trial court's order and remand for resentencing. Mr. Morris asserted in his motion that he was entitled to resentencing under chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida.
The trial court denied his motion, and we affirmed. Morris v. State, 206 So. 3d 154, 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). Mr. Morris sought review in the Florida Supreme Court, which reversed our mandate and remanded for resentencing. Morris v. State, 246 So. 3d 244, 245 (Fla. 2018).
In August 2018, we issued our mandate adopting the supreme court's mandate and reversing Mr. Morris's sentence and remanding for further proceedings. As a result, the trial court ordered that Mr. Morris be resentenced. Before the resentencing hearing occurred, the trial court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of Pedroza v. State, 291 So. 3d 541 (Fla. 2020). After Pedroza was decided, the trial court concluded that Mr. Morris was no longer entitled to resentencing, and it granted the State's motion to rescind its order granting resentencing. Relying on our decision in Marshall v. State,
313 So. 3d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), the postconviction court did not follow our mandate and declined to resentence Mr. Morris. In Marshall, we denied the petitioner's motion to enforce our mandate directing resentencing because an intervening supreme court decision established that our prior opinion was no longer correct. Id. at 672.
We receded from Marshall in Howard v. State, 322 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), explaining that once a mandate ordering resentencing issues, the "original sentence is now a nullity" and cannot be recalled after 120 days have lapsed. Id. at 137.
Regardless of whether there has been intervening case law, the judgment ordering resentencing "is final and no longer subject to reconsideration." State v. Okafor, 306 So. 3d 930, 935 (Fla. 2020).
Mr. Morris is entitled to resentencing. As explained in Howard, however, Mr. Morris "may have won a pyrrhic victory because 'the decisional law effective at the time of the resentencing applies.' Hence, upon resentencing, Mr. [Morris] may yet receive the same sentence." 322 So. 3d at 138 (quoting Croft v. State, 295 So. 3d 307, 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and STARGEL, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rachaun Blount v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…t for a stay pending the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Pedroza v. State, 291 So. 3d 541 (Fla. 2020). Pedroza expressly disapproved Blount. Id. at 549. The postconviction court then dismissed Blount's motion in reliance on Marshall v. State, 313 So. 3d 671, 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), in which this court denied a motion to enforce mandate based on the exception to the law of the case doctrine for a contrary intervening supreme court decision. But we have receded from Marshall and reiterated the finality…
Authorities Cited
- Isiah Jermaine Corbett v. State, 277 So. 3d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
- Jarrod Rondell McDowell v. State, 306 So. 3d 930 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
- Dante Rashad Morris v. State, 246 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 2018)