RICHARD CARTER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
RICHARD CARTER, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
879 So. 2d 646
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2004)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on Appellant’s motion for rehearing. We grant the motion for rehearing and, accordingly, withdraw our former opinion of March 30, 2004, and substitute in its place this corrected opinion.
AFFIRMED. See Frazier v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D369, - So. 2d -, 2004 WL 221043 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb.6, 2004); Therrien v. State, 859 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). We certify conflict with Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281, 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
BOOTH, POLSTON and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2005)…00 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Wilson v. State, 884 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Ellis v. State, 881 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); B.L.J. v. State, 880 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Taylor v. State, 880 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Hansell v. State, 879 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); McGill v. State, 878 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Washington v. State, 876 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Williams v. State, 876 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); McGough v. State, 876 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Turner v.…
-
Conroy v. State, 933 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…rder was entered sixty-seven days after the motion was filed. Therefore, although the State correctly conceded error in the court and the court attempted to correct the error, it was without jurisdiction to do so on April 25, 2005. Hansell v. State, 879 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Moreover, while the sixty-day period may be extended for good cause, it cannot be extended after it has already run. McGuire v. State, 779 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The State concedes that Conroy is entitled to be resenten…
-
Aahtrell Johnson v. State, 894 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). However, the trial court’s order was entered more than 60 days after Appellant filed his 3.800(b)(2), motion, and is therefore a nullity. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2); Hansell v. State, 879 So. 2d 646, 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding order entered more than 60 days from date defendant filed 3.800 motion is a nullity); Robinson v. State, 850 So. 2d 658, 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (same). Accordingly, the trial court’s order, entered April 22, 2004…
Authorities Cited
- Ferman Carlos Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Therrien v. State, 859 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)