MELVIN J. DAY, 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.
Trial court properly dismissed a Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging habitual violent felony offender designation filed during pendency of direct appeal, as amended rules prohibit such motions while appeal is pending.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging a habitual violent felony offender designation when a direct appeal is pending.
[1] During the pendency of a direct appeal, trial courts lack jurisdiction to consider Rule 3.800(a) motions challenging sentencing designations, but retain jurisdiction only…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender to 30 years with 15-year minimum mandatory on January 13, 2000, and appealed on January …
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 During Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On January 13, 2000, the trial court sentenced the appellant as a habitual violent felony offender to 30 years in prison with a 15-year minimum mandatory. The appellant appealed his judgment and conviction on January 21, 2000. That appeal is currently pending; however, on February 18, 2000, the appellant filed a rule 3.800(a) motion challenging his designation as a habitual violent felony offender. Because the direct appeal was pending, the trial court dismissed the appellant’s motion for lack of jurisdiction.
The trial court correctly dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. The Florida Supreme Court recently amended Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(d) giving trial courts jurisdiction to consider only rule 3.800(b)(2) motions to correct an illegal sentence during the pendency of an appeal. See Amendments to Fla. R. of Crim. P. 3.111(e) and 3.800 and Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h), 9.HO, and 9.600, 761 So. 2d 1015 (Fla.1999). Effective January 13, 2000, a party may not file a rule 3.800(a) during the pendency of a direct appeal. See Campbell-Eley v. State, 763 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal without prejudice to the appellant’s right to file a new rule 3.800(a) mo tion once the direct appeal has been resolved.
JOANOS, KAHN and BROWNING, JJ. CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Golden v. State, 870 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…mally a motion authorized by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Hines v. State, 842 So. 2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). However, rule 3.800(a) prohibits the filing of such a motion during the pendency of a direct appeal. See Day v. State, 770 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding that effective January 13, 2000, a party may not file a rule 3.800(a) motion during the pendency of a direct appeal). Since Golden filed his motion during the pendency of the direct appeal of his judgment and sentence,…
-
Ladson v. State, 907 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…rmally a motion authorized by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Hines v. State, 842 So. 2d 999,1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). However, rule 3.800(a) prohibits the filing of such a motion during the pendency of a direct appeal. See Day v. State, 770 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding that effective January 13, 2000, a party may not file a rule 3.800(a) motion during the pendency of a direct appeal). Because Ladson filed his motion during the pendency of the direct appeal of his judgment and sentenc…
-
Bradley v. State, 971 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…. R. App. P. 9.020(h), 9.140, & 9.600, 761 So. 2d 1015, 1019 (Fla.1999) (explaining that rule 3.800(b)(2) pertains to motions to correct sentencing errors, which includes challenge against illegal sentence, while an appeal is pending); Day v. State, 770 So. 2d 1262, 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Still, the trial court properly treated the motion as one filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a) since a defendant may raise the illegality of his sentence at any time. A claim that a mandatory minimum sentence was illegally impo…
Previewing 3 of 13 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)
- Campbell-Eley v. State, 763 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)