ELIJAH JACKSON, JR., 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.
Affirmed grand theft conviction but remanded for entry of amended cost order reflecting trial court's May 4, 2006 corrections, as the trial court's July 20, 2006 order was a nullity for exceeding the sixty-day deadline under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).
A trial court's order correcting sentencing costs entered more than sixty days after a Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion is filed is a nullity, and the court must enter an amended cost order reflecting corrections made within the deadline.
[1] A trial court's order correcting sentencing costs under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) entered more than sixty days after the motion is filed is a nullity…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson was convicted of grand theft of three Xerox machines. The trial court granted his Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion challenging certain costs imposed at…
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 Statutory Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Elijah Jackson, Jr., appeals from his judgment and sentence for the grand theft of three Xerox machines. We find merit only in his argument that the trial court erred in imposing certain costs at sentencing.
Jackson filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) challenging the imposition of certain costs. The trial court granted the motion by order dated May 4, 2006, and entered an amended cost order. However, the amended cost order did not itemize all of the statutory costs and failed to strike other costs that the court acknowledged were improperly imposed. As Jackson points out, the trial court entered a second order correcting these errors on July 20, 2006, but the order was not rendered within sixty days of the filing of his rule 3.800(b)(2) motion and was therefore a nullity. See Whitmore v. State, 910 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). After sixty days, Jackson’s motion was deemed denied. See Moore v. State, 933 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
Accordingly, we affirm Jackson’s judgment and sentence and remand for the entry of an amended cost order that reflects the trial court’s corrections in its May 4, 2006, order correcting sentencing error. Affirmed; remanded with directions.
NORTHCUTT and LAROSE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.P. and V.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 957 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…for writ of certiorari pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c). See also In Interest of M.A., 609 So. 2d 597 (Fla.1992); Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Honeycutt, 609 So. 2d 596 (Fla.1992); S.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 950 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Because notice of the evidentiary hearing that led to the order was both ineffective and defective, and thus departed from the essential requirements of law, we grant the writ. It is unnecessary to develop in detail the backgro…
-
Fidensio Gallegos v. State, 63 So. 3d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…he order is deemed a nullity and must be stricken.” Miran v. State, 46 So. 3d 186, 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); see also Mapp v. State, 18 So. 3d 33, 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (striking an out-of-time order granting a rule 3.800(b) motion); Jackson v. State, 950 So. 2d 1267, 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that an order rendered more than sixty days after the filing of a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion was a nullity). Therefore, while we affirm the judgments and sentences, we must remand to the trial court to strike the Janua…
-
D.W.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 961 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…allenged order is not an appeal-able order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3). However, this court treats the notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(c); S.H. v. Deft of Children & Families, 950 So. 2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); In re 726 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Interest of K.D. & C.M., 679 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Though D.W.G. addresses much of his argument against the October order on judicial review/permanency review and notice of…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Whitmore v. State, 910 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- State v. Hampton, 933 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)