Besong v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Besong v. State

922 So. 2d 445, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3446, 2006 WL 572176

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 10, 2006

DocketNo. 2D05-3041

StatusPublished

This text of 922 So. 2d 445 (Besong v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Besong v. State, 922 So. 2d 445, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3446, 2006 WL 572176 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

LaROSE, Judge.

Paul Besong appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct his judgment and sentence. Mr. Besong filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) challenging his sexual predator designation. Relying on Angell v. State, 712 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), the trial court, on June 2, 2005, concluded that rule 3.800(a) was not available for such a challenge. Subsequently, however, we receded from Angell in King v. State, 911 So.2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (en banc), and held that rule 3.800(a) is available to correct an erroneous sexual predator designation.

Decisions announcing new rules of law apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review or not yet final. Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063, 1066 (Fla.1992). Accordingly, King applies to Mr. Besong’s case. The State concedes that, although the trial court’s ruling was correct under Angelí, this case should be reversed and remanded for a ruling on the merits under King.

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LaROSE, Judge.

Paul Besong appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct his judgment and sentence. Mr. Besong filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) challenging his sexual predator designation. Relying on Angell v. State, 712 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), the trial court, on June 2, 2005, concluded that rule 3.800(a) was not available for such a challenge. Subsequently, however, we receded from Angell in King v. State, 911 So.2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (en banc), and held that rule 3.800(a) is available to correct an erroneous sexual predator designation.

Decisions announcing new rules of law apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review or not yet final. Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063, 1066 (Fla.1992). Accordingly, King applies to Mr. Besong’s case. The State concedes that, although the trial court’s ruling was correct under Angelí, this case should be reversed and remanded for a ruling on the merits under King.

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

922 So. 2d 445, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3446, 2006 WL 572176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/besong-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack