KEVIN J. COLLINS, 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.
Kevin Collins appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), arguing it was improperly dismissed as successive. The appellate court reversed, holding that Collins' earlier 3.800(b)(2) motion was unauthorized and void because it was filed during his direct appeal without leave of court, meaning it could not serve as a bar to the current motion.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that Collins' initial rule 3.800(b)(2) motion was unauthorized and therefore null and void because it was filed without leave of the appellate court during the pendency of his direct appeal. Consequently, the trial court erred in denying the rule 3.800(a) motion as successive, since under McBride, successive motions are permitted unless the claim was previously adjudicated.
[1] A trial court errs in denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence as successive when the prior motion was null and void due to lack of jurisdiction.
[2] A prior motion filed without leave of court during the pendency of a direct appeal is unauthorized and renders the trial court's order denying it void.
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(a) allows the filing of successive motions unless the claim raised in an earlier motion was previously adjudicated”
Establishes the legal standard for what constitutes an impermissible successive motion under rule 3.800(a)
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCollins was convicted of burglary of a structure and grand theft following a jury trial. He was sentenced as a violent career criminal to fifteen year…
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 Adjudication Of Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Kevin J. Collins, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Collins contends the trial court improperly denied his motion as successive because an earlier motion raising the issues was null and void. We agree, and reverse and remand for the trial court to consider Collins’ rule 3.800(a) motion on the merits.
Collins was convicted of burglary of a structure and grand theft following a jury trial and was sentenced as a violent career criminal to fifteen years’ 'incarceration on the burglary conviction, and five years’ incarceration on the grand theft conviction, the sentences to run concurrently. Collins appealed, filing an amended Anders 1 brief. After it was filed, Collins motioned this court to relinquish jurisdiction so he could file a motion to correct illegal sentence under rule 8.800(b)(2) in the trial court. Before receiving a ruling, he proceeded to file a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion in the trial court along with a notice of that filing in this court. Although we subsequently denied the motion to relinquish,2 the trial court denied Collins’ rule 3.800(b)(2) motion.
After some procedural wrangling, which is not relevant here, Collins filed the instant rule 3.800(a) motion asserting claims attacking his career criminal designation. The trial court denied this motion as successive based on Collins’ prior motions and direct appeal.3 This was error because Collins’ initial rule 3.800(b)(2) motion was filed without leave of this court during the pendency of his direct appeal after his *792initial Anders brief was filed. Consequently, the filing was unauthorized and the trial court’s order denying the motion was null and void because it lacked jurisdiction.4 See State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287 (Fla.2003) (rule 3.800(a) allows the filing of successive motions unless the claim raised in an earlier motion was previously adjudicated).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., and PLEUS, JR., R., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilman Ramon Collando-Pena v. State, 141 So. 3d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…tencing error was filed in the trial court after the Anders brief was served and after the time had elapsed for Appellant to timely file and serve a pro se brief.1 Under these circumstances, we find that the motion is untimely. See Collins v. State, 17 So. 3d 790, 791 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (recognizing that a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion may be filed in the trial court while an Anders appeal is pending until the time elapses for the appellant to file a pro se brief). The language in rule 3.800(b)(2) contempla…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Rodriguez v. State, 881 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Tanzler v. State, 6 So. 3d 711 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)