DONALD VINCENT ARCHAMBAULT, 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 motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) cannot be filed during the time allowed for a Rule 3.800(b) motion or during the pendency of an appeal.
Donald Archambault filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence and sought additional credit for time served. The trial court granted the motion in p…
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) Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, C.J.
' Donald Archambault appeals the order granting in part and denying in part his rale 3.800(a) motion. We vacate the order without prejudice.
In 1984, Archambault was sentenced on six counts to various terms of incarceration followed by community control and probation. After serving the incarcerative portions of his sentences, Archambault violated his probation and was resentenced on counts one through six.
On 26 June 2000, Archambault filed a rule 3.800(a) motion claiming that his sentences were illegal. He also sought additional credit for time served out of state. On 28 June 2000, Archambault filed a notice of appeal of the resentencing order. On 26 July 2000, the trial court issued an order on the rule 3.800(a) motion, correcting the sentences on counts two, four and five, and denying the claim for credit. Ar-chambault then filed this appeal of the trial court’s order on the rule 3.800(a) motion, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to grant all of the requested relief.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) expressly states that a motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) may not be filed during the time allowed for the filing of a rule 3.800(b) motion or during the pendency of an appeal. Arehambault’s rule 3.800(a) motion was filed during the time a rule 3.800(b) motion could have been filed and was pending when the direct appeal of the resentencing order was filed. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court’s order must be vacated as the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion.
ORDER VACATED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to allow Archambault to file a rule 3.800(a) motion once the direct appeal of the resentencing order is final.
PETERSON and SAWAYA, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Levory W. Hickmon v. State, 965 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Archambault v. State, 781 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). PLEUS, ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.…
-
Schilter v. State, 904 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…irm the judgment and sentence without prejudice for appellant to pursue his pending (but prematurely filed) pro se motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) wherein he seeks additional credit for time served. See Archambault v. State, 781 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Affirmed.…