TRACY LINDA HALL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, V. TRACY LINDA HALL, 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 affirmed the trial court's order granting the motion to correct a sentencing error and resentencing the appellant without a minimum mandatory term.
Appellant was convicted of trafficking amphetamine and sentenced with a minimum mandatory term. She filed a motion to correct a sentencing error, argu…
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 Minimum Mandatory Term cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.
Tracy Linda Hall appeals her judgment and sentence for one count of trafficking in amphetamine. See § 893.135, Fla. Stat. (2001). The offense occurred on May 15, 2001. She pleaded nolo contendere to this charge and received a sentence of three years’ imprisonment including a three-year minimum mandatory term. While Ms. Hall’s direct appeal was pending, she filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) to correct a sentencing error. She maintained that the minimum mandatory term could not be imposed in light of this court’s opinion in Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The trial court granted the motion and resentenced her to three years in prison without a minimum mandatory term.
As a result of the successful rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, Hall’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We affirm her appeal.
As a result of the successful rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, the State appealed the order granting relief and the new sentence, arguing that chapter 2002-212, Laws of Florida, provided for retroactive application of the statute. We rejected this argument in Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). But see Clayton v. State, 842 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we affirm the State’s appeal.
Affirmed.
SALCINES and COVINGTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Clayton v. State, 842 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)