RONNIE EDWARDS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2001-03-14
No. 1D00-2393
BARFIELD, C.J., ALLEN and BROWNING, JJ„ concur.
780 So. 2d 286 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2001) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Ronnie Edwards appeals an order which denied his motion to correct an illegal sentence. However, the sentence of which he complains has been vacated and he has been resentenced in accordance with Edwards v. State, 770 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). In response to this court’s order regarding the continuing viability of this appeal, Edwards argues that his new sentence is also illegal. It does not appear that a direct appeal was taken from the new sentence. We find, therefore, that Edwards’ proper remedy is to move to correct his new sentence and, if that motion is denied, he may seek review in this court. As for this appeal, however, it is moot because the sentence to which the 3.800 motion was directed has been vacat ed. This appeal is hereby dismissed as moot, but without prejudice to appellant’s right to move to correct his new sentence.

DISMISSED.

BARFIELD, C.J., ALLEN and BROWNING, JJ„ concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • COX v. State, 799 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
    …has now been resen-tenced pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000), and he does not challenge his new sentence, we dismiss as moot his claim that his prior sentence exceeded the sentencing guidelines maximum range. See Edwards v. State, 780 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. ALLEN, C.J., PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., CONCUR.…
  • Pope v. State, 911 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
    …ced in accordance with Pope v. State, 884 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Because Pope has not been resentenced, his motion is premature, not moot. Nevertheless, the trial court should have dismissed, and not denied, the motion. See Edwards v. State, 780 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Pope’s rule 3.800(a) motion and remand for entry of an order of dismissal, which shall be without prejudice to any right Pope may have to refile his claim, if necessary, afte…
  • Dennewitz v. State, 911 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
    …uring the pendency of a direct appeal.”). Moreover, the claim became moot when Dennewitz’s March 25, 2004, sentence was vacated, and he was resentenced in accordance with Dennewitz v. State, 899 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). See Edwards v. State, 780 So. 2d 286, 286 (Fla. 1st DCA [*247] 2001) (“As for this appeal, however, it is moot because the sentence to which the [rule] 3.800 motion was directed has been vacated.”). On remand, his motion should be stricken. Reversed and remanded. VILLANTI and WALLA…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw