ROBERT SIM DIXON
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.
An order ruling on a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion entered after the 60-day deadline is a legal nullity and must be vacated.
[1] An order entered by a trial court ruling on a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) after the expiration of the 60-day deadline is a legal nullity a…
[2] A de minimis error in a sentencing scoresheet is harmless and does not require resentencing where the defendant was sentenced to a term substantially exceeding the minimu…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“if the trial court does not file an order ruling on a timely motion within 60 days, the motion shall be deemed denied”
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2)(B)
Appellant admitted violating probation conditions and was revoked and sentenced to eighteen months. While an appeal was pending, he moved to correct t…
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 Sentencing Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After Appellant admitted violating some of the conditions of his probation, that probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to eighteen months in prison. As this appeal was pending, he moved in the trial court to correct the revocation order and the sentencing scoresheet pursuant to rule 3.800(b)(2), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court granted in part and denied in part the motion, but by the time its ruling was issued, the trial court no longer had jurisdiction over the motion as more than sixty days had elapsed since the filing of the motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B) (“[I]f the trial court does not file an order ruling on a timely motion within 60 days, the motion shall be deemed denied.”). The trial court’s order is therefore a legal nullity, as the State rightly acknowledges. See Taylor v. State, 185 So. 3d 1281
(Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (explaining that an order entered after the expiration of the time for ruling on a motion under rule 3.800(b)(2) is a nullity).
Accordingly, the cause is remanded to the trial court to enter a corrected order revoking Appellant’s probation. We note that the scoresheet dated May 25, 2022, which was presumably used at the revocation proceeding, does not list an additional offense. It does list the offense of use or possession of drug paraphernalia as part of Appellant’s prior record, but such an offense also appeared on the original scoresheet dated June 30, 2021. If the May 25, 2022, scoresheet is indeed erroneous as Appellant alleges in his motion to correct, the error is harmless and does not require resentencing since Appellant was sentenced to more than the lowest permissible sentence in his scoresheet. See Harmon v. State, 284 So 3d 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (explaining de minimis scoresheet error was harmless and did not require resentencing where defendant was sentenced to almost two years more than the minimum sentence if a correct scoresheet had been used).
REVERSED and REMANDED. RAY, BILBREY, and LONG, JJ., concur. _____________________________