EDWARD KING, 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 filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is unauthorized if filed during the pendency of a direct appeal.
The State filed a motion to vacate sentence credit during the defendant's direct appeal. The trial court granted the State's motion.…
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 Direct Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1068] PER CURIAM.
Edward King appeals the granting of the State’s motion, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which sought to vacate the portion of his sentence which “allowed a total of 334 days as credit for time incarcerated prior to imposition of this sentence.”
However, rule 3.800(a) prohibits the filing of such a motion during the pendency of a direct appeal. See Day v. State, 770 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding that effective January 13, 2000, a party may not file a rule 3.800(a) motion during the pendency of a direct appeal).
Because the State filed this motion during the pendency of King’s direct appeal of his judgment and sentence, the State’s motion was unauthorized. The circuit court could not have treated the State’s motion as if filed pursuant to rule 3.800(b) because the State may file a rule 3.800(b) motion “only if the correction of the sentencing error would benefit the defendant or to correct a scrivener’s error.” See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b). The State commendably has conceded error. Therefore, the order of the circuit court granting the motion must be reversed. On remand, the circuit court should strike the State’s motion as unauthorized and should restore the rescinded credit.
In any future proceedings seeking the vacation of the previously awarded jail credit, the State should consider the impact of this court’s opinion in Lebron v. State, 870 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that a trial court may not rescind jail credit previously awarded even if the initial award was improper), and the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in Wheeler v. State, 880 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (citing Lebron with approval).
Reversed and remanded.
WHATLEY, SALCINES, and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2005)…rror in the following opinions published since the beginning of 2004: Brown v. State, 893 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Santiago v. State, 893 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Washington v. State, 890 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); King v. State, 891 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Card v. State, 889 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Walker v. State, 886 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Long v. State, 886 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Stewart v. State, 884 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Wilson v. State, 884…
-
Linnon v. State, 988 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…0(a). Because the record indicates that the State’s motion was filed [*73] during the time allowed for filing a motion under rule 3.800(b)(1) and that an appeal was pending, the State’s motion was unauthorized under rule 3.800(a). See King v. State, 891 So. 2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The State is authorized to file a motion to correct sentencing error under rule 3.800(b) “only if the correction of the sentencing error would benefit the defendant or to correct a scrivener’s error.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800…
-
King v. State, 913 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…appeals, claiming a violation of his double jeopardy protection. We agree that such a violation has occurred. At the time the trial court ruled, it did not have the benefit of this court’s opinion in another appeal taken by Mr. King. King v. State, 891 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). There, after Mr. King had filed his notice of appeal, the State filed with the trial court a motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a) to rescind jail time credit that it believed had been erroneously awarded. The trial court granted the…
Authorities Cited
- Wheeler v. State, 880 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Lebron v. State, 870 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- DAY v. State, 770 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)