MORRIS DASHER, III, 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.
Appellate court vacated trial court's order correcting sentence because the order was filed beyond the sixty-day deadline, and defendant waived double jeopardy objections by entering a negotiated plea agreement covering both charges.
A defendant who enters a negotiated plea agreement waives double jeopardy objections to concurrent sentences for related offenses, and a trial court's corrective order filed beyond the sixty-day period under Rule 3.800(b)(2) is void for lack of jurisdiction.
[1] A defendant who enters a negotiated plea agreement waives double jeopardy objections to concurrent sentences for related offenses included in that plea.
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 intelligenceMorris Dasher, III was convicted and sentenced for both grand theft and dealing in the same stolen property. He entered a negotiated plea on both char…
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 Jurisdictional Defect cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, J.
In this Anders1 appeal, a sentencing issue has been raised by appellate counsel. Before the initial brief was filed, appellate counsel filed a timely motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), claiming that it was a double jeopardy violation for Morris Dasher, III, to be convicted and sentenced for both grand theft and dealing in the same stolen property. Within the sixty-day period permitted by the rule, the trial court conducted a hearing and ruled from the bench that Mr. Dasher was entitled to relief. However, the written order was filed beyond the sixty-day period, and as counsel correctly observes and the State concedes, this renders the order void. See Barger v. State, 923 So. 2d 597, 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
We vacate the trial judge’s order correcting Mr. Dasher’s sentence. In doing so, we observe that Mr. Dasher is not entitled to the relief sought under rule 3.800(b). When Mr. Dasher entered into a negotiated plea on both charges, he waived his double jeopardy objections to the sentences that were part of the plea agreement. See Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla.1994). The order on Mr. Dasher’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion was entered without jurisdiction and must be stricken.
REVERSED AND REMANDED With Directions to Reinstate Original Sentence.
MONACO and EVANDER, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyle v. State, 995 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla.1994); Melvin v. State, 645 So. 2d 448 (Fla.1994); Dasher v. State, 956 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). GRIFFIN, MONACO and COHEN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1994)
- Barger v. State, 923 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)