EDDIE JAMES JONES, 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.
Eddie Jones appeals the trial court's failure to rule on his motion to correct sentencing error, where he requested written findings specifying which probation conditions he violated. The court held that the trial court's failure to rule within sixty days constituted a denial of the motion, requiring reversal and remand for proper written findings.
The trial court erred by failing to rule on Jones' Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion within sixty days, which constituted a deemed denial of the motion. The error of failing to specify the particular probation conditions violated in the written revocation order must be corrected on remand by entering proper written findings.
[1] A trial court's written revocation order must specify the particular conditions of probation that a defendant was found to have violated.
[2] A motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) is deemed denied if the court fails to rule on it within sixty days.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Rule 3.800(b)(2) provides that a motion filed pursuant to that rule is deemed denied if the court fails to rule on it within sixty days.”
Establishes the legal standard that failure to rule constitutes a denial under the rule
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones' probation was revoked by the trial court, which orally found violations of conditions 1, 9, and 12. However, the written revocation order faile…
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.
DAVIS, Judge.
Eddie James Jones challenges the trial court’s failure to rule on the motion he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), in which he asked the trial court to enter written findings specifying the particular conditions of probation that he was found to have violated. He claims that the trial court’s failure to rule on his motion within sixty days constitutes a denial and is in error. We agree and, accordingly, reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The trial court revoked Jones’ probation, orally finding that he had violated conditions 1, 9, and 12 of his probation. However, in its written revocation order, the trial court erred in failing to specify the particular conditions that Jones was found to have violated. See Jelks v. State, 770 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Jones properly preserved this error by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(b)(2) on July 26, 2004. See Gammon v. State, 778 So. 2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Smith v. State, 780 So. 2d 166, 167 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Jelks, 770 So. 2d at 185; see also Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316, 316 n. 1 (Fla.2000). In that motion, he asked the trial court to enter such findings in writing. However, the trial court never ruled on his motion.
Rule 3.800(b)(2) provides that a motion filed pursuant to that rule is deemed denied if the court fails to rule on it within sixty days. Therefore, the trial court’s failure to rule on Jones’ motion by September 26, 2004, constituted a denial of his motion. On October 4, 2004, the Lee County deputy clerk confirmed the absence of such an order by filing a certificate of nonexistence stating that she had examined the files in the case and had failed to find any written order ruling on Jones’ July 26, 2004, motion to correct sentencing error. Because it was error to fail to enter proper written findings specifying which conditions of probation Jones was found to have violated and because Jones preserved this error by filing a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error in which he asked the court to enter the requisite written findings, we reverse and remand to the trial court with directions to enter such written findings.
Reversed and remanded.
KELLY and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Odom v. State, 15 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…oyd v. State, 912 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (concluding that appellant preserved issue challenging the evidentiary basis for imposition of $450 in court costs and $128 in investigative costs by filing a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion); Jones v. State, 898 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (concluding that filing a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion preserved the issue of the trial court’s failure to specify the particular conditions that were grounds for probation revocation). The third option arises where the error is not a…
-
Nash v. State, 958 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). The circuit court failed to rule on the motion within sixty days as required by rule 3.800(b)(2), and therefore, the motion is deemed denied. See Jones v. State, 898 So. 2d 209, 210 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).…
-
Mendenhall v. State, 233 So. 3d 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…004). However, this error has not been preserved for appellate review because Appellant did not object at trial or raise this specific issue in the Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion that he filed in this case. See Jones v. State, 898 So. 2d 209, 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (finding that the trial court’s error in failing to specify in its written revocation order the conditions of probation that it orally found the defendant had violated was properly preserved for review by the defendant’s fili…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gammon v. State, 778 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2000)
- Charles v. State, 763 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2000)
- Antoine Jelks v. State, 770 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Smith v. State, 780 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)