AMANDA LYNN MANATA, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal clarified its prior mandate requiring vacation of Manata's grand theft conviction and resentencing on the organized scheme to defraud conviction. The court enforced its mandate after the trial court improperly resentenced on grand theft and the State entered a nolle prosse on the original conviction, actions that violated the appellate court's ministerial authority.
The trial court violated the appellate mandate by resentencing on grand theft instead of following the court's ministerial directive. The State's nolle prosse of the organized scheme to defraud conviction is a nullity because the State lacks authority to nolle pros a charge after jeopardy has attached. The trial court must vacate the grand theft conviction and resentence on the defraud count as originally mandated.
[1] A circuit court's compliance with an appellate court's mandate is a purely ministerial act, and the circuit court lacks the authority to modify, nullify, or evade that ma…
[2] A trial court may not resentence a defendant on a conviction that an appellate court has ordered vacated.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“When an appellate court issues a mandate, compliance with the mandate by the circuit court is purely a ministerial act. The circuit court does not have the authority to modify, nullify or evade that mandate.”
Establishes that trial courts must mechanically comply with appellate mandates without discretion to modify or ignore them.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManata was convicted of organized scheme to defraud and grand theft. In a prior appeal, this court found both convictions violated double jeopardy pri…
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 Motion To Enforce Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
OPINION GRANTING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, WITHDRAWING OPINION ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE, AND GRANTING MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE
The appellant filed a motion .for clarification asking this court to clarify its “Opinion on Motion to Enforce Mandate,” filed on April 28, 2017. We grant the motion to clarify, withdraw the “Opinion on Motion to Enforce Mandate” filed on April 28, 2017, and issue this opinion in its place.
The appellant was convicted of organized scheme to defraud and grand theft. On appeal, this Court held that her convictions for both crimes violate double jeopardy principles, and ordered the lower court to vacate the grand theft conviction. Manata v. State, 213 So.3d 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). We also affirmed the conviction for organized scheme to defraud, but remanded for the limited purpose of resentencing on that count. Id. Instead, at the State’s request the trial court resentenced the appellant on the grand theft conviction, and the State entered a nolle prosse on the organized scheme to defraud conviction. As numerous courts, including this one, have held:
When an appellate court issues a mandate, compliance with the mandate by the circuit court is purely a ministerial act. The circuit court does not have the authority to modify, nullify or evade that mandate.
Huffman v. Moore, 834 So.2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (citations omitted). Thus, we grant the motion to enforce mandate and direct the trial court to quash the order resentencing the appellant on the grand theft. The trial court is again directed to vacate the appellant’s conviction and sentence for grand. theft and to resentence her for the organized scheme to defraud conviction. The Staté’s nolle prosse of the appellant’s conviction for organized scheme to, dfefraud is a nullity, and shall have ho effect on remand. See Muhammad v. State, 99 So.3d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Flores v. State, 958 So.2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“The State has no power to nolle pros a charge after jeopardy has attached. Therefore,' the State has no authority to nolle pros a charge after a jury is sworn.”).
ROBERTS, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alcazar v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Huffman v. Moore, 834 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Sameer Muhammad v. State, 99 So. 3d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Flores v. State, 958 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Manata v. State, 213 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)