MARCO PACE
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 3d DCA | 2022-03-02
No. 21-2148
Bieber, Ref, Spec
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2022)

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.

Synopsis

Marco Pace appealed the trial court's denial of his postconviction motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and the subsequent denial of his motion for rehearing. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court erroneously relied on outdated precedent in denying the motion for rehearing, when Rule 3.800(a) was amended in 2005 to permit such motions.


Holding

The court held that Rule 3.800(a) was amended effective January 1, 2005, to permit motions for rehearing. The trial court erred in denying Pace's motion for rehearing based on outdated precedent that predated the 2005 amendment.


Headnotes

[1] Effective January 1, 2005, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) was amended to authorize motions for rehearing of orders denying postconviction motions to correct…

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

Key Quotes

“Rule 3.800(a) was amended, effective January 1, 2005, to permit motions for rehearing.”

Court explaining that the trial court's order denying the motion for rehearing was based on an incorrect understanding of the rule.

Facts & Procedural History

Marco Pace filed a postconviction motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). After the trial court denied t…

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

Opinion filed March 2, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-2148 Lower Tribunal Nos. F98-36722, F99-4398 ________________ Marco Pace, etc.,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Robert T. Watson, Judge. Marco Pace, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY and HENDON, JJ. HENDON, J.

Marco Pace seeks review of the trial court’s denial of his postconviction motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), and from the denial of his motion for rehearing of the order denying his 3.800(a) motion. We reverse and remand for reconsideration of Pace’s motion for rehearing.

The trial court entered an order denying Pace’s motion for rehearing, stating: “Defendant’s Motion for Rehearing is DENIED because rule 3.800 does not authorize motions for rehearing.” In support, the trial court cited to decisions entered by our sister courts in 1992 and 1994. However, “Rule 3.800(a) was amended, effective January 1, 2005, to permit motions for rehearing.” See Johnson v. State, 961 So. 2d 195, 196 (Fla. 2007) (citing Amends. to the Fla. Rules of Crim. Proc., 886 So. 2d 197, 199-200 (Fla. 2004)). As the order denying Pace’s motion for rehearing does not reflect that the trial court denied the motion on the merits, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of Pace’s motion for rehearing because the trial court erroneously determined that rule 3.800 does not authorize motions for rehearing. Bamber v. State, 995 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

Reversed and remanded.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw