PATRICK SULLIVAN
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 dismissed Patrick Sullivan's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Sullivan sought to correct an alleged error in his sentencing, but his motion was not an appealable order under Florida rules.
No, the appellate court does not have jurisdiction to review the order denying Sullivan's motion to correct error because it is not a final judgment or any other type of appealable order.
[1] A motion to correct error that does not invoke Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800, 3.850, 3.853, or other authorized postconviction remedies is not an appealable o…
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“But we do not have jurisdiction to review the postconviction court's order because it is "not a final judgment adjudicating guilt, final order withholding adjudication, order denying relief pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800, 3.850, 3.853, or any other type of appealable order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140."”
This quote explains why the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatrick Sullivan was convicted of aggravated battery and armed carjacking in 2004. His sentencing was continued, and although initially considered for…
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 Right To Be Present At Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Larry Helms, Judge. Patrick Sullivan, pro se. CASANUEVA, Judge. Patrick Sullivan appeals the order denying his "motion to correct error." We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. In July 2004, a jury found Sullivan guilty of aggravated battery and armed carjacking. The State asserted at sentencing
that Sullivan qualified as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR), and defense counsel agreed.
However, sentencing was continued to September, at which time the trial court did not sentence Sullivan as a PRR.1 Sullivan filed his motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.180(a)(9), but that rule merely provides that a defendant's presence is required at the pronouncement of judgment and the imposition of sentence; it does not authorize relief by postconviction motion. See Brown v. State, 929 So. 2d 675, 677 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
As a result, the postconviction court should have stricken Sullivan's motion as unauthorized. See id. Instead,1 The trial court sentenced Sullivan to consecutive terms of fifteen years' imprisonment on the aggravated battery count and life imprisonment on the carjacking count.
the postconviction court addressed what it characterized as the merits of the motion. But we do not have jurisdiction to review the postconviction court's order because it is "not a final judgment adjudicating guilt, final order withholding adjudication, order denying relief pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800, 3.850, 3.853, or any other type of appealable order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140." Id. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id. at 678. Dismissed. SILBERMAN and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.