EDDIE 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.
Eddie Dixon appeals his conviction and sentence for armed burglary of a conveyance with battery. The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the State's motion to correct sentencing by adding a no-contact order during the pendency of Dixon's appeal, as such an order imposes new legal obligations rather than correcting beneficial or scrivener's errors.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the State's motion to correct sentencing while the appeal was pending. The State may move to correct sentences during a defendant's appeal only to correct errors benefitting the defendant or scrivener's errors; adding a no-contact order, which exposes the defendant to new felony charges for violation, exceeds these limitations.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a state's motion to correct sentencing error while a defendant's appeal is pending, except for errors benefiting the defendan…
[2] A no-contact order, which imposes a potential felony charge for violation, is not an error benefiting the defendant or a scrivener's error that can be corrected by a tria…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“While the State may move to correct sentence during a defendant's appeal, its scope is limited to correcting errors benefitting the defendant or scrivener's errors.”
Establishes the legal standard for State motions to correct sentencing during appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEddie Dixon was convicted of armed burglary of a conveyance with battery and other offenses. He stalked and battered the mother of his child with a sa…
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 Correction Of Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
TRAVER, C.J.
Eddie Dixon appeals his conviction and sentence for, among other offenses, armed burglary of a conveyance with a battery.1 We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(1)(A). Dixon raises four issues on appeal, and one merits reversal. The trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider the State’s motion to correct sentencing error while this appeal was pending.
Trial courts must impose no-contact orders on defendants convicted of certain qualifying offenses. See § 921.244(1), Fla. Stat. (2020). These no-contact orders preclude defendants from contacting their victims, directly or indirectly, throughout their sentences. See id. Dixon, who stalked and then battered the mother of his child with a sawed-off shotgun, committed three such crimes.
The trial court did not enter a no-contact order at Dixon’s sentencing, though, and the State did not request one before Dixon appealed. The State then moved to correct Dixon’s sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). It alleged Dixon had written to the victim multiple times from prison, and that she wished it to stop. Dixon objected, contending that the State could not seek this relief during his appeal.
The trial court granted the State’s motion and amended Dixon’s sentence to include a no-contact order. While the State may move to correct sentence during a defendant’s appeal, its scope is limited to correcting errors benefitting the defendant or scrivener’s errors. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b). By adding a no-contact order, which exposed Dixon to a new felony charge if he violated it, the trial court exceeded these limitations. See § 921.244(2); see also Jolly v. State, 358 So. 3d 463, 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023). We therefore affirm the trial court’s original judgment and sentence and remand for the trial court to vacate its amended sentence. Our ruling is without prejudice to the State to seek appropriate post-mandate relief, if available. The victim may separately pursue immediate relief if she so qualifies. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with instructions. MIZE and GANNAM, JJ., concur. Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Terrence E. Kehoe, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Elba Caridad Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and James Hellickson, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.