VICTOR M. BARRIOS, 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.
Court reversed summary denial of defendant's Rule 3.801 motion for correction of jail sentence, holding that trial court must allow amendment of a timely but facially insufficient motion before denying it.
A trial court must allow a defendant sixty days to amend a timely but facially insufficient Rule 3.801 motion before denying it.
[1] A trial court must allow a defendant sixty days to amend a timely but facially insufficient motion for correction of jail sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedur…
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 intelligenceVictor Barrios filed a motion for correction of jail sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801, but the motion was legally insuffi…
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 Facially Insufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
Victor Barrios, the defendant below, appeals an order summarily denying his motion for correction of jail sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801.
On this appeal, the parties are in agreement that Barrios’s rule 3.801 motion was legally insufficient for failure to contain the contents required under subsection (c) of the rule, but that the trial court erred in denying his motion without first giving Barrios an opportunity to amend his timely, but facially insufficient motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(e) (incorporating Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(f)(2), which provides that where a timely, but facially insufficient motion is filed, “the court shall enter a nonfinal, nonappealable order allowing the defendant 60 days to amend the motion”); Belanger v. State, 146 So.3d 136, 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“Based on our review of the defendant’s motion, we agree with the trial court that the defendant’s motion fails to include all of the information required by rule 3.801(c). However, because this was the defendant’s first attempt to file such a motion, the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion without giving the defendant leave to amend his motion.”) (footnote omitted).
Upon the State’s proper confession of error, and our own review of the scant record before us, we reverse the order under review to allow Barrios to file a facially sufficient rule 3.801 motion within sixty days of the issuance of this Court’s mandate. See Belanger, 146 So.3d at. 137.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…timely filed under this rule, the court shall enter a nonfinal, nonappealable order allowing the defendant 60 days to amend the motion”); 1 Rule 3.801(c)(1)-(5) enumerates the information to be set forth in the motion. 3 Barrios v. State, 225 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding the trial court erred by summarily denying a facially insufficient rule 3.801 motion without first giving the defendant an opportunity to amend); Lundy v. State, 257 So. 3d 566 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); Lopez v. State, 248…
-
Joseph v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…s and records that conclusively show Defendant is entitled to no relief, as required by Rule 3.801(e) (incorporating provisions of Rule 3.850 (e), (f), (j), (k), and (n)). See Williams v. State, 233 So. 3d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Barrios v. State, 225 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). Reversed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded with instructions. trial court attached the plea agreement, which specifically called for appellant to receive 100 days of credit (which the appellant was awarded), a written not…
-
Joseph v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…s and records that conclusively show Defendant is entitled to no relief, as required by Rule 3.801(e) (incorporating provisions of Rule 3.850 (e), (f), (j), (k), and (n)). See Williams v. State, 233 So. 3d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Barrios v. State, 225 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). Reversed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded with instructions. trial court attached the plea agreement, which specifically called for appellant to receive 100 days of credit (which the appellant was awarded), a written not…
Authorities Cited
- Belanger v. State, 146 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)