DANIEL BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 court held that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to correct a sentence after a notice of appeal has been filed, and summary denial without record attachments is improper.
Appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, alleging the trial court improperly corrected his sentence after he had already filed a timel…
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 Jurisdiction Of Trial Court cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Daniel Brown appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.800 motion to correct illegal sentence. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Brown’s motion alleges the following. In lower court case number 86^439-CF, a jury found him guilty of attempted second degree murder and burglary of a dwelling with a battery. After he was sentenced on December 4, 1986, he timely filed an appeal on December 31, 1986. However, on January 5, 1987, the trial court entered a corrected sentence that, according to Brown, also vacated the sentence originally imposed on December 4, 1986.
Brown argues that the trial court’s action of January 5,1987 was illegal because at that point, jurisdiction had already vested in this court and the trial court, as a result, lacked jurisdiction to correct his sentence. As support, Brown’s motion cites Harrell v. State, 197 So. 2d 505 (Fla.1967); Woods v. State, 516 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); and Rasul v. State, 506 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We conclude that these cases support Brown’s position and that he may be entitled to relief if the allegations in his motion are true. See also Wolfson v. State, 437 So. 2d 174, 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (once the notice of appeal is filed, the trial court lacks authority “to make even a proper reduction of the sentences”).
The trial court’s order summarily denied Brown’s motion. The order does not include attachments to the record conclusively demonstrating that Brown is not entitled to relief. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(g). Therefore, we reverse and remand to the trial court in order for it to attach portions of the record in lower court case number 86-439-CF conclusively refuting Brown’s allegations, hold an evidentiary hearing or grant Brown’s motion. See, e.g., Small v. State, 624 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT HEREWITH.
DIAMANTIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 2 So. 3d 89 (Fla. 2008)…0(a)(3)(C)(ii) was amended to address a conflict in the case law concerning whether orders granting, modifying, dissolving, or refusing to grant, modify, or dissolve garnishments are appealable under this subdivision. Compare Ramseyer v. Williamson, 639 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (garnishment order not appealable), with 5361 N. Dixie Highway v. Capital Bank, 658 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (permitting appeal from garnishment order and acknowledging conflict). The amendment is not intended to limit or…
-
5361 N. Dixie Hwy., Inc. v. Cap. Bank, 658 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…Procedure 4.2 which did not include a provision for review of orders determining the right to immediate possession of property. That section was added in the 1977 revision of the rules. We acknowledge possible conflict with Ramseyer v. Williamson, 639 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), in which the court dismissed an appeal of a denial of a motion to dissolve a writ of garnishment because the order was not an appealable non-final order under rule 9.130. Having resolved that there is jurisdiction for a non-fi…
-
Alvaro Martinez, Jr., M.D. v. GOLISTING.COM, Inc., 233 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…o grant, modify, or dissolve garnishments are appealable under this subdivision. See Committee Notes to In re Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Appellate Procedure, 2 So. 3d 89, 93 (Fla. 2008) (noting conflicting authorities in Ramseyer v, Williamson, 639 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (garnishment order not appealable) and 5361 N. Dixie Highway v. Capital Bank, 658 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (permitting appeal from garnishment order and acknowledging conflict)); Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii), committ…
Authorities Cited
- Wolfson v. State, 437 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Harrell v. State, 197 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1967)
- Hill v. State, 624 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Natal Rasul v. State, 506 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Woods v. State, 516 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)