REGINALD WRIGHT
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
PER CURIAM.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING We deny the appellant’s motion for rehearing. However, we withdraw our prior per curiam affirmance with citations issued August 19, 2020 and substitute the following in its place. Affirmed.
Melton v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1296 (Fla. 1st DCA May 29, 2020) (holding that because resentencing had not yet occurred, the court retained jurisdiction to reconsider its order granting resentencing based on an intervening change in the law); Adams v. State, 949 So. 2d 1125, 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (holding that when a trial court grants a 3.800(a) motion, it has not granted the defendant any collateral relief until it resentences him as the order granting a 3.800(a) motion is not a final order) (citing State v. Delvalle, 745 So. 2d 541, 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)); Rogers v. State, 296 So. 3d 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (concluding that orders granting relief under rule 3.800(a) are not final or appealable, and so the trial court retains its inherent authority to reconsider such orders); Morgan v. State, 293 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (holding that order granting defendant's motion to correct illegal sentence but not yet resentencing defendant was not final, appealable order).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wright v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…ts a 3.800(a) motion, it has not granted the defendant any collateral relief until it resentences him as the order granting a 3.800(a) motion is not a final order) (citing State v. Delvalle, 745 So. 2d 541, 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)); Rogers v. State, 296 So. 3d 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (concluding that orders granting relief under rule 3.800(a) are not final or appealable, and so the trial court retains its inherent authority to reconsider such orders); Morgan v. State, 293 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (holdi…
-
Carey Haynes v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)
-
Ellis Jarel McArthur v. State, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D73 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…ree we are correct to affirm under Pedroza II and Levesque. I write to highlight that this is again a case in which Appellant will be treated differently than other “defendants who committed serious criminal offenses as juveniles.” Rogers v. State, 296 So. 3d 500, 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (en banc) (Bilbrey, J., concurring). Had Appellant been sentenced before the State withdrew its initial concession, he faced the prospect of receiving a shorter sentence as well as the assurance of a future sentence review…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016)
- Perez v. State, 745 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Adams v. State, 949 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Wright v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- Carey Haynes v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)