SIDNEY DEON REYNOLDS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2017-08-02
No. Case No. 2D16-5271
WALLACE and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
229 So. 3d 404 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2017)

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.


Holding

The court affirmed the denial of claims one and two, but reversed and remanded for further proceedings on claim three.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant sought post-conviction relief in three cases, asserting claims under Rules 3.850 and 3.800(a). The post-conviction court summarily denied hi…

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.


Opinion of the Court
CASANUEVA, Judge.

CASANUEVA, Judge.

Sidney Deon Reynolds appeals the post-conviction courts order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief in three separate cases. In his motion, he asserted three claims of error. Claims one and two sought postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Finding no error, we affirm the postconviction court’s order summarily denying claims one.and two.

. The third and remaining claim asserted an illegal sentence claim pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Specifically, Mr. Reynolds alleged that the enhancement of his mandatory minimum sentence resulted in an illegal sentence.

Rule 3.800(a)(1) provides that “[a] court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it.” To the extent that the postconviction court’s order can be read to bar this claim as untimely, that basis is incorrect. Alternatively, to the extent that the order can be read as failing to rule upon this claim, a remand for disposition is appropriate.

In remanding this matter for further proceedings, we are not suggesting the remaining claim is meritorious. Rather, that decision remains to be made by the postconviction court.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded for further proceedings.

WALLACE and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw