ALEX U. SIRMONS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Alex U. Sirmons appealed his twenty-year sentence for robbery with a deadly weapon, raising four issues regarding his conviction and sentencing. The court affirmed the first three issues but agreed with Sirmons's fourth argument that his sentence contained a scrivener's error regarding credit for time served. The court quashed the trial court's corrected sentencing order because it was entered beyond the sixty-day statutory deadline and remanded for correction based on the original oral pronouncement.
The trial court's amended sentencing order entered sixty-one days after the motion was filed is void because it was entered without jurisdiction. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2)(B), once sixty days pass without a ruling on such a motion, the motion is deemed denied and any subsequent resentencing order is a nullity.
[1] When a motion to correct sentencing errors is filed while an appeal is pending, the trial court must rule on the motion within sixty days or the motion is deemed denied;…
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 intelligence“Once the sixty days has passed, an order purporting to resentence a defendant is entered without jurisdiction and is a nullity.”
Court explaining the jurisdictional consequence of failing to rule on a motion to correct sentencing within the statutory period.
The trial court orally granted Sirmons 685 days of credit for time served. The initial sentencing order for Count III erroneously reflected only 643 d…
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 Jurisdiction To Resentence cases and more on FLexlaw
CIKLIN, J. Alex U. Sirmons appeals his judgment and sentence of twenty years for robbery with a deadly weapon and related convictions. He raises four issues on appeal. With respect to the first three issues, we affirm without further discussion. However, we agree with Sirmons’s fourth argument: his sentence should be amended to correct a scrivener’s error with respect to credit for time served.
The trial court orally granted Sirmons 685 days credit for time served. However, the sentencing order for Count III reflected only 643 days of credit for time served. Sirmons moved to correct the error and his motion was granted on that point.
However, the “corrected” sentence was apparently transposed but in any event erroneously provided 658 days credit for time served rather than 685 days. Sirmons filed a second motion to correct the sentence on June 13, 2018, while his appeal was pending. It does not appear that the court directly ruled on the motion, but a corrected sentence was entered on August 14, 2018, sixty-one days after the motion was filed.
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2)(B), if a trial court does not rule on a motion to correct a sentencing error filed while an appeal is pending within sixty days, the motion shall be deemed denied. Once the sixty days has passed, an order purporting to resentence a defendant is entered without jurisdiction and is a nullity. See, e.g., Maestas v. State, 76 So. 3d 991, 993 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Campbell v. State, 789 So. 2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
Here, once sixty days passed after Sirmons’s motion was filed, it was deemed denied. Because the trial court entered the amended sentencing order more than sixty days after the motion was filed, the order was entered without jurisdiction and is a nullity.
Accordingly, we quash the corrected sentence and we remand for correction in accordance with the court’s oral pronouncement as to the amount of credit to be given to Sirmons for previous time served. The defendant need not be present when the court corrects the error. See Sessions v. State, 907 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. WARNER and LEVINE, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Summerson v. State, 374 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)
-
Summerson v. State, 277 So. 3d 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)
-
Delilah Colarte v. State, 316 So. 3d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maestas v. State, 76 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Sessions v. State, 907 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Campbell v. State, 789 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)