JOHN ANTHONY CARTER, 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.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to correct a non-clerical sentencing error when a direct appeal is pending.
Appellant sought to correct an illegal sentence, but the trial court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction due to a pending direct appeal. The ap…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John Anthony Carter appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court denied the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because Carter’s direct appeal was pending. We affirm because Carter s claim is not based on a clerical error. On our own motion, we have considered this case en banc in order to recede from Curry v. State, 657 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), review granted, 676 So. 2d 412 (Fla.1996), to the extent that it appears to broaden a trial court’s jurisdiction to rule on anything more than a clerical error under rule 3.800(a) when the defendant has a direct appeal pending.
In Easterling v. State, 596 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), we held that the trial court had “concurrent jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence which may have resulted from a clerical oversight.” 596 So. 2d at 103-104 (emphasis added). Curry cited Easter-ling to support its holding that the trial court had concurrent jurisdiction but failed to note that jurisdiction was limited to the correction of clerical errors. Accordingly, we recede from Curry and reiterate that when a direct appeal is pending, a trial court retains jurisdiction to correct only clerical mistakes under rule 3.800(a).
In Carter’s case, there is no indication that his claim is based on a clerical error. Thus, the trial court correctly held that it did not have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm.
THREADGILL, C.J., and RYDER, DANAHY, CAMPBELL, SCHOONOVER, FRANK, PARKER, PATTERSON, ALTENBERND, BLUE, LAZZARA, FULMER, QUINCE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Denson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…Stat. (Supp.1996). . Our case law and the 1996 comment to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600 create some confusion concerning the trial courts’ jurisdiction to correct illegal sentences during the pen-dency of an appeal. In Carter v. State, 680 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), this court held en banc that a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) could address only a clerical error during the pendency of an appeal. This ruling reconfirmed our decision in Easterling v. State, 596…
-
Brown v. State, 744 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. Leonard James Brown challenges the trial court’s dismissal of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court based its dismissal upon Carter v. State, 680 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), and reasoned that it was deprived of jurisdiction to hear the motion because of a pending appeal in this court of the judgment and sentence. We reverse. In Johnson v. State, 697 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), this court determ…
Authorities Cited
- Easterling v. State, 596 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Curry v. State, 657 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)