BRYAN K. HOGAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Timeliness Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Bryan K. Hogan appeals the summary denial of his pro se motion to correct illegal sentence. Although Hogan styled his motion as a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), Hogan is in fact challenging his convictions rather than his sentences which have long since expired. Hogan’s motion meets the pleading requirements of rule 3.850 and should have been treated as a rule 3.850 motion by the trial court. Hogan’s motion was filed within the window created by Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1999), and raises claims that are traditionally cognizable in error coram nobis. See State v. Perry, 786 So. 2d 554 (Fla.2001). We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to consider Hogan’s motion as a rule 3.850 motion in light of Perry of which the trial court did not have the benefit at the time of its ruling.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BLUE, C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gill v. State, 829 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…court was in error. Where a movant files a properly pleaded claim but incorrectly styles the postconviction motion in which it was raised, the trial court must treat the claim as if it had been filed in a properly styled motion. See Hogan v. State, 799 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that properly pleaded rule 3.850 claim should have been treated as such by trial court even though motion was styled as one to correct sentence). Furthermore, subsection (l)(a) of rule 3.850 states that a rule 3.850 motio…
-
Howard v. State, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2561 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…Mr. Howard's motion expressly and primarily sought relief under rule 3.850 and met the pleading requirements of that rule. Accordingly, the postconviction court was required to treat it—and we treat it—as a rule 3.850 motion. See Hogan v. State, 799 So. 2d 1095, 1095 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Gladon v. State, 227 So. 3d 651, 652-53 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). Consequently, the order reversing Mr. Howard's sentence and directing resentencing was final, and the postconviction court lacked jurisdiction to rescind it. Se…
-
Hogan v. State, 884 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ity to present relevant testimony at the evidentiary hearing conducted by the trial court. We conclude that this claim has merit and therefore reverse the order denying Hogan’s motion. This case has been before this court before. In Hogan v. State, 799 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), this court held that Hogan’s motion for postconviction- relief was timely because it contained claims trar ditionally addressed in error coram nobis and because his motion fell within the window created by Wood v. State, 750 So.…
Authorities Cited
- Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1999)
- State v. Perry, 786 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2001)