WILLIAM PETTIT, 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.
A motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) is cognizable even after the sentence is served if the alleged illegality impacted subsequent civil commitment.
Appellant sought to correct an illegal sentence, claiming an improperly calculated scoresheet would have led to his release before civil commitment pr…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*545] WALLACE, Judge.
William R. Pettit appeals from an order summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Mr. Pettit has been released from prison, but he has been detained while he awaits trial in a civil commitment proceeding under the Jimmy Ryce Act (the Act).1 The postcon-viction court dismissed Mr. Pettit’s motion, citing Sherwood v. State, 745 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). In Sherwood, the Fourth District said that “[w]hile rule 3.800(a) permits an illegal sentence to be corrected at any time ... the rule means that the sentence can be corrected at any time while the sentence is being served.” Id. at 378. The Sherwood court reasoned that the correction of a sentence after it has been served does not serve any useful purpose. Id.
Here, however, Mr. Pettit claims that but for his improperly calculated score-sheet, the trial court would have imposed a substantially shorter sentence on him. Under these circumstances, Mr. Pettit argues that he would have been released from custody prior to the effective date of the Act. Mr. Pettit concludes that if he had been released from custody prior to the effective date of the Act, he would not have been subject to civil commitment. Such a claim is cognizable under rule 3.800(a) even after the defendant has served his allegedly illegal sentence and is no longer imprisoned. See State v. Atkinson, 831 So. 2d 172 (Fla.2002); Pride v. State, 973 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).
Accordingly, we reverse the order dismissing Mr. Pettit’s rule 3.800(a) motion and remand for the postconviction court to consider Mr. Pettit’s claim on the merits.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur. . See §§ 394.910-931, Fla. Stat. (2005). The effective date of the Act is January 1, 1999. See Ward v. State, 986 So. 2d 479, 480 (Fla.2008).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. State, 132 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…h of that sentence caused him to receive a significantly longer sentence in a subsequent prosecution. The court denied his motion. In this appeal, Defendant reasserts the grounds raised in his motion to vacate. Relying primarily on Pettit v. State, 995 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), and Smith v. Kearney, 802 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), he argues that he is entitled to relief on his fully-served sentence. In particular, he alleges that the illegal one-year probationary term imposed for criminal mischief w…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Atkinson, 831 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2002)
- Sherwood v. State, 745 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Dep't OF Revenue v. Novoa, 745 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Ward v. State, 986 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2008)
- Pride v. State, 973 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)