JASON CHAD RUMLIN, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed concurrent sentences of 44.25 months for drug delivery near a place of worship and drug possession where defendant entered open pleas and raised no reversible error.
The court affirmed the concurrent sentences because the record does not reflect reversible error.
[1] A motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) is untimely when served after the defendant serves his appellate brief.
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 intelligenceJason Chad Rumlin pleaded open to two counts of delivery of a controlled substance within 1000 feet of a place of worship and one count of possession …
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 Pro Se Brief cases and more on FLexlaw
Jason Chad Rumlin seeks review of his judgments 'and sentences in two separate cases for two counts of delivery of a controlled substance within 1000 feet' of a place of worship and one count of possession of a controlled substance. Rumlin entered open pleas to the charges, and the court imposed' concurrent sentences of 44.25 months in prison. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Rumlin filed a pro se brief. We affirm because the record does not reflect reversible-error.
We note that Rumlin filed a pro se motion to correct sentencing error while this appeal was pending pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). However, this motion was untimely because it was served after Rumlin served his pro se brief. See id. Our record reflects that the trial court has not entered a written order on the motion. However, we note that any such order would be a nullity because of the untimeliness of the motion. See State v. Hodges, 151 So.3d 531, 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). We express no opinion on the merits of Rumlin’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion and affirm without prejudice to any right he may have to file a motion for postconviction relief.
Affirmed;
CRENSHAW and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. Hodges, 151 So. 3d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)