HENRY JAMES RIVERS, 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 trial court's correction of a sentence after the sixty-day jurisdictional period is a nullity, even if agreed to by the parties.
Henry James Rivers was convicted of burglary and grand theft and received a prison releasee reoffender (PRR) sentence for the grand theft. Grand theft…
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 Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
Henry James Rivers appeals his convictions and sentences for two counts of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and one count of grand theft, specifically challenging his prison releasee reoffender (PRR) sentence for grand theft. Grand theft is not a qualifying offense under the PRR statute. § 775.082(9)(a)(1), Fla. Stat. (2007). Therefore, Rivers could not have been sentenced as a PRR on that offense. The State agrees that Rivers should be resentenced to a non-PRR sentence on the grand theft count. See Tucker v. State, 864 So.2d 580, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that when an illegal sentence is the result of a negotiated plea agreement with the State, the State has the option of agreeing to the resentencing or withdrawing from the plea agreement).
In response to a motion to correct sentencing error filed by Rivers, the trial court correctly eliminated the PRR designation from Rivers’ grand theft sentence, but it did so too late because sixty days had already passed, which rendered the corrected sentence a nullity. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B), (b)(1)(B); Manning v. State, 961 So.2d 1135, 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The sixty-day limitation in the rule is jurisdictional, see Manning, 961 So.2d at 1136, and therefore, even a corrected sentence that is sought by the defendant and agreed to by the State cannot be imposed by the court upon the stipulation of the parties because it is fundamental that parties cannot stipulate to confer jurisdiction on the court, see Metellus v. State, 900 So.2d 491, 495 (Fla.2005).
Accordingly, we reverse Rivers’ sentence for grand theft and remand for re-sentencing on that count only.
*348Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DAVIS and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Butler v. State, 193 So. 3d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…illegal PRR enhancements. Accordingly, because a new appeal would be redundant, we reverse Butler’s.sentences for. the two counts of battery on a law enforcement officer and remand for resentencing without the PRR enhancements. See Rivers v. State, 17 So. 3d 347, 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Petition denied in part and granted in part. LaROSE and SALARIO, JJ., Concur. . "A claim that counsel was. ineffective in failing to file a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error when the sentence. • imposed…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mosley, 900 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 2004)
- Tucker v. State, 864 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Manning v. State, 961 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)