DIEGO JORGE JIMENEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Petitioner Jimenez sought habeas corpus relief from a resentencing order entered by the trial court before the appellate court's mandate issued. The court granted the petition because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the resentencing order prior to the issuance of the appellate mandate.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the resentencing order on September 25, 2015, because the order was entered prior to the issuance of the appellate court's mandate on September 29, 2015. The petition for habeas corpus relief is therefore granted.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to enter a resentencing order prior to the issuance of an appellate court's mandate.
[2] A trial court's resentencing order entered before the issuance of an appellate court's mandate is 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“Because the resentencing order was entered prior to the issuance of this Court's mandate in Jimenez II, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter same.”
Establishes the core holding that the trial court's lack of jurisdiction was based on the timing of the order relative to mandate issuance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJimenez was convicted in 2003 of multiple offenses including aggravated assault and battery on police officers. He filed several rule 3.800 motions, w…
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 Issuance Of Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner Diego Jorge Jimenez seeks habeas corpus relief from his resentencing order. Because the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the resentencing order, we grant Jimenez’s petition.
In 2003, Jimenez was convicted of one count of aggravated assault on a police officer, one count of aggravated battery on a police officer, one count of battery on a police officer, one count of battery, two counts of resisting officer with violence, and one count of depriving an officer of means of protection. Thereafter, Jimenez filed several rule 3.800 motions with the trial court and appealed several of his rule 3.800 denials.
In Jimenez’s appeal of the trial court’s denial of Jimenez’s third rule 3.800 motion, this Court reversed and remanded to the trial court on the State’s proper concession of error. Jimenez v. State, 88 So.3d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (Mem) (“Jimenez I”). On remand, the trial court denied Jimenez’s motion in part and granted it in part, on the ground of double jeopardy. Jimenez subsequently appealed this trial court order to this Court, and, on July 8, 2015, this Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s order. We remanded the matter to the trial court for entry of a new sentence in accordance with its opinion. State v. Jimenez, 173 So.3d 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (“Jimenez II”). Our mandate in Jimenez II issued on September 29, 2015.
Prior to the issuance of our mandate, however, on September 25, 2015, the trial court entered Jimenez’s new sentencing order, attempting to conform to our opinion in Jimenez II.1
Jimenez brought the instant petition arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the September 25, 2015 resentencing order. Because the resen-*1260fencing order was entered prior to the issuance of this Court’s mandate in Jimenez II, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter same. Leatherwood v. State, 168 So.3d 328, 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (Mem). We, therefore, grant Jimenez’s petition and direct the trial court to enter a revised sentencing order in accordance with this Court’s opinion in Jimenez II.2
Petition granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
VME Grp. Int'l, LLC v. THE Grand Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2420 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…on a matter prior to the appellate court’s issuance of a mandate on that matter, and such a premature order is subject to vacatur by the appellate court. Id.; see also Richardson v. State, 257 So. 3d 605, 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Jimenez v. State, 215 So. 3d 1259, 1259-60 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Leatherwood v. State, 168 So. 3d 328, 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); State v. Sharp, 564 So. 2d 217, 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).4 4 We are aware that, absent a stay, during the pendency of appellate review of a non- final order,…
Authorities Cited
- Thibodeau v. Sarasota Mem'l Hosp. & All Risk Corp. of Fla., 449 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- State v. Jimenez, 173 So. 3d 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Jimenez v. State, 88 So. 3d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Leatherwood v. State, 168 So. 3d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)