MANASSAH JUNIOR PAUL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Paul sought clarification of a trial court order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Third District Court of Appeal treated his petition for writ of certiorari as a direct appeal and affirmed the trial court's orders denying relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
The court affirmed the trial court's orders denying Paul's motion to correct illegal sentence. The court held that under the 2014 amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, a motion for rehearing is not abandoned upon filing a notice of appeal; instead, the final order is not deemed rendered until the trial court rules on the rehearing motion.
[1] A motion for rehearing is not abandoned when a notice of appeal is filed while the motion is pending.
[2] When a motion for rehearing is pending, the final order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence is not deemed rendered until a signed order disposing of the motio…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a double jeopardy analysis must — in accordance with section 775.021(4) — be conducted without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial, even where an alternative conduct statute is implicated.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing whether a sentence is illegal under double jeopardy principles, as set forth in Roughton v. State.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaul filed a motion to correct his sentence pursuant to Rule 3.800(a). On September 16, 2015, the trial court denied the motion. Paul filed a notice o…
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 Double Jeopardy Analysis cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
We grant Paul’s motion for clarification, withdraw our previously-issued opinion, and substitute the following opinion in its stead.
We treat Paul’s petition for writ of cer-tiorari as an appeal from the trial court’s order denying motion to correct illegal sentence and the trial court’s ameiided order denying motion to correct illegal sentence1 and affirm. See Irizarry v. State, 905 So.2d 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); State v. Reardon, 763 So.2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Washington v. State, 752 So.2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). See also § 775.021(4)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (1995); Roughton v. State, 185 So.3d 1207 (Fla. 2016) (receding: from Gibbs v. State, 698 So.2d 1206 (Fla.1997) and holding that “a double jeopardy analysis must — in accordance with section 775.021(4) — be conducted without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial, even where an alternative conduct statute is implicated.”)
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deedra Artis v. Stephens (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Gibbs v. State, 698 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 1997)
- State v. Reardon, 763 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Roughton v. State, 185 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 2016)
- Irizarry v. State, 905 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Washington v. State, 752 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 183 So. 3d 245 (Fla. 2014)