PATRICK KEEBLER
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.
A trial court lacks authority to rescind its order granting postconviction relief under rule 3.850 based on subsequent developments in substantive decisional law.
[1] A trial court lacks authority to rescind or modify an order granting postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 based on subsequent developments…
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 intelligenceAppellant filed a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief in 2016 seeking resentencing, which the postconviction court granted. Years later, befor…
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 Rule 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
November 3, 2023 PER CURIAM.
In 2016, Appellant filed a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief in which he sought resentencing. The postconviction court granted the motion. See Keebler v. State, 286 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). The resentencing did not occur, and earlier this year, the postconviction court granted the State’s motion to rescind the pending resentencing based on new developments in the substantive decisional law. Appellant challenges the court’s order, arguing the court lacked authority to revisit its 2016 order granting resentencing under rule 3.850. We agree. See Morgan v. State, 350 So. 3d 712, 716–18 (Fla. 2022); State v. Jackson, 306 So. 3d 936, 942–43 (Fla. 2020); Taylor v. State, 140 So. 3d 526, 528–29 (Fla. 2014). Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand the matter to the postconviction court with directions to conduct the resentencing proceeding that the court previously granted.
REVERSED and REMANDED. JAY, SOUD, and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Keebler v. State, 350 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…PER CURIAM. In 2016, Appellant filed a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief in which he sought resentencing. The postconviction court granted the motion. See Keebler v. State, 286 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). The resentencing did not occur, and earlier this year, the postconviction court granted the State’s motion to rescind the pending resentencing based on new developments in the substantive decisional law. Appellant challenges th…1 / 2
-
Boucher v. State, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D646 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
-
Jeromee Saffold v. State, 429 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 2026)
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lamont Taylor v. State, 140 So. 3d 526 (Fla. 2014)
- Keebler v. State, 350 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)