WANDA KIMBROUGH, 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.
Wanda Kimbrough filed a Rule 3.800(b) motion to correct a sentencing error, but the trial court failed to rule within the required 60-day period. The appellate court held that the motion is deemed denied as a matter of law when no timely ruling is entered, and the 60-day deadline is self-executing and cannot be extended.
The Rule 3.800(b) motion is deemed denied as a matter of law when no timely ruling is entered within 60 days of filing. The 60-day deadline is self-executing with no authority in the rule for either the trial court or appellate court to extend the period. Relinquishment of jurisdiction after the deadline expires would be futile.
[1] A motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) is automatically deemed denied if the trial court fails to rule on it within 60 days of filing.
[2] There is no authority for a trial court or an appellate court to extend the 60-day period for ruling on a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) motion.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Rule 3.800(b) expressly provides that the trial court must rule on the motion within 60 days of filing or the motion is deemed denied. This provision is intended to minimize any delays in the appellate process.”
Establishes the mandatory nature of the 60-day deadline and its purpose
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKimbrough filed a timely motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) to correct a sentencing error after her appeal was filed. The trial …
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 Supplementation Of Appellate Record cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Wanda Kimbrough, filed a timely motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) to correct a sentencing enpr after her appeal was filed, but the trial court failed to rule on the motion within 60 days. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) was amended to provide an effective mechanism for trial courts to correct sentencing errors during the initial stages of an appeal, without any need for an order relinquishing jurisdiction. See Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.111(e) and 3.800 and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h), 9.H0, and 9.600, 761 So. 2d 1015 (Fla.1999), rehearing granted, No. 95,707 (Jan. 13, 2000). However, Rule 3.800(b) expressly provides that the trial court must rule on the motion within 60 days of filing or the motion is deemed denied. This provision is intended to minimize any delays in the appellate process.
We find that the rule is self-executing and there is no authority in the rule for either the trial court or the appellate court to extend that time period. In fact, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(e)(6)(A) directs the clerk of the circuit court to automatically supplement the appellate record after 65 days, when an order is not filed within the required time. In accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(e), the burden is on the appellant to ensure that the record is prepared and transmitted as required. The supplemental record should include the motion and a statement that no order was timely filed. Once the supplemental record is filed, the moving party has ten days to file its first brief. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2).
In this case, when neither the supplemental record nor the appellate brief was filed as required by the rule, we issued a rule to show cause. After reviewing the response and reply thereto and the foregoing rules, we hold that the Rule 3.800(b) motion, which was not decided within 60 days of filing, is deemed denied and any order rendered more than 60 days from the filing of the motion is a nullity. When the 60 day period from the filing of appellant’s Rule 3.800(b) motion expired without a ruling by the trial court, the clerk of the circuit court was required to transmit a supplemental record including the motion, any response thereto and a statement that no order on the motion was timely filed. When the clerk failed to do so, appellant should have acted to ensure the record was transmitted without further delay. When neither the clerk nor appellant acted, the appeal was unnecessarily delayed.
Although appellant argues that the delay in ruling on the motion was justified because the circuit court clerk’s office was in the process of being relocated and because the case was reassigned and was not brought to the new judge’s, attention until after the 60 days had expired, regardless of the circumstances, the Rule 3.800(b) motion was denied as a matter of law when no timely ruling was entered. We reject the suggestion that we relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court after the 60 day period has expired to allow a belated ruling on a Rule 3.800(b) motion or to allow the lower court to reissue an untimely ruling. Once the time has expired, the motion is deemed denied as a matter of law and relinquishment of jurisdiction would be futile.
Accordingly, the clerk of the circuit court is directed to supplement the record on appeal within 10 days of the date of this decision, in accordance with Rule 9.140(e)(6), and appellant shall file the initial brief within 10 days thereafter. Any sentencing error addressed in the Rule 3.800(b) motion is preserved and may be raised in the appeal.
COBB, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
McGUIRE v. State, 779 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…state attorney’s office. The State filed a motion to extend the time to resolve this matter in the trial court, and the trial court granted a sixty-day extension. Appellate counsel, familiar with the Fifth District’s decision in Kimbrough v. State, 766 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), and concerned that the trial court’s order might not be effective, filed a motion to extend the time in this court. We granted that motion, extending the time to resolve the motion through January 15, 2001. Our unpublished order…
-
Campbell v. State, 789 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…tered within 60 days from the filing of the motions, as required by rule 3.800(b)(1)(B), and under that applicable version of that rule, the motions are therefore deemed denied. Hart v. State, 773 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Kimbrough v. State, 766 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). On November 14, 2000, the trial court entered orders, nunc pro tunc to September 14, 1999, purporting to resen-tence appellant to concurrent terms of 23 months in state prison, followed by 36 months probation in 95-162, and 62…
-
Sampson v. State, 798 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…rs, pursuant to Rule 3.800(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We agree with the defendant’s contention that because the order ruling on the motion was filed more than 60 days after the motion was filed, it is deemed denied. Kimbrough v. State, 766 So. 2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)(holding that order ruling on 3.800(b) motion to correct sentencing errors entered more that sixty days after motion filed “is deemed denied and any order rendered more than 60 days from the filing of the motion is a nullity…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Amendments TO Fla. Rules OF Crim. Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Fla. Rules OF App. Procedure 9.020(h), 791 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2001)