STEPHEN K. HART, 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 loses jurisdiction to correct sentencing errors after sixty days have passed without ruling on a motion filed under Rule 3.800(b)(2), rendering any subsequent order a nullity.
Appellant's counsel filed a motion to correct sentencing errors, which was not ruled upon within sixty days. The trial court later attempted to grant …
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 Scoresheet Error cases and more on FLexlaw
BENTON, J.
Stephen K. Hart appeals sentences imposed after he was convicted of four felonies. We reverse all four sentences imposed when he was sentenced for the second time, because the trial court no longer had jurisdiction then. We need not, therefore, reach appellant’s contentions that these sentences were illegal on other grounds. On account of conceded scoresheet errors, we also reverse the sentences originally pronounced, and remand for resentencing.
In accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), Mr. Hart’s appellate counsel filed a timely motion to correct sentencing errors that occurred at the first sentencing. More than sixty days elapsed thereafter -without entry of an order on the motion.
The motion to correct sentencing error was deemed denied, and the trial court’s jurisdiction came to an end, once sixty days passed with no action on the motion. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(1)(B); Kimbrough v. State, 766 So. 2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (holding “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”). The trial court thereafter purported nevertheless to grant the motion, set aside the original sentences, and impose new sentences.
As the trial court’s belated effort to grant the motion to correct sentencing error recognized, the motion was well founded. Filed under Rule 3.800(b)(2), the motion preserves for appellate review appellant’s contention that scoresheet errors affected the original sentencing. See Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89, 94 (Fla. 2000). Accordingly, on the basis of the scoresheet errors complained of in the motion, we reverse all four sentences originally imposed.
The four original sentences as well as the four sentences subsequently pronounced are reversed, and the case is remanded for resentencing, after consideration of corrected scoresheets.
JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E.S.B. v. State, 822 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…procedural safeguards, as Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). See I.B. v. State, 816 So. 2d 230, 231 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Appellant’s utilization of rule 8.135(b)(2) preserved this issue for appellate review. Compare Hart v. State, 773 So. 2d 1263, 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)(filing rule 3.800(b)(2) motion preserves sentencing issue for appellate review).…
-
Sessions v. State, 907 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…ends, once 60 days elapse without rendition of an order ruling on the motion, and any order rendered more than 60 days after a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion is filed is a nullity. See Campbell v. State, 789 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), Hart v. State, 773 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), and numerous subsequent cases from this court and from other courts. The sentences originally imposed, except for the improperly designated second degree felony, are REVERSED. The February 11, 2005, order and the February 28,…
-
Campbell v. State, 789 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ended sentencing order.” However, no amended order was entered 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…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Kimbrough v. State, 766 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)