Bullock v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bullock v. State

845 So. 2d 316, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7146, 2003 WL 21122662

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 16, 2003

DocketNo. 2D03-187

StatusPublished

This text of 845 So. 2d 316 (Bullock 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

Bullock v. State, 845 So. 2d 316, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7146, 2003 WL 21122662 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SALCINES, Judge.

Dustin D. Bullock challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Bullock argues that his three-year minimum mandatory sentence is illegal based on Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). We affirm the order of the trial court because Bullock’s motion is facially insufficient as he does not affirmatively allege that his date of offense falls within the window created by Taylor. We note, however, that the trial court did not dismiss Bullock’s motion as facially insufficient. Instead, in its December 10, 2002 order, it dismissed Bullock’s motion without prejudice to refile when the Florida Supreme Court had reviewed the decision in Taylor. On May 29, 2002, several months before that order was written, the State filed a voluntary dismissal of said review in State v. Taylor, 821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002) (table decision). Our affirmance is therefore without prejudice to Bullock’s filing a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.

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

SALCINES, Judge.

Dustin D. Bullock challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Bullock argues that his three-year minimum mandatory sentence is illegal based on Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). We affirm the order of the trial court because Bullock’s motion is facially insufficient as he does not affirmatively allege that his date of offense falls within the window created by Taylor. We note, however, that the trial court did not dismiss Bullock’s motion as facially insufficient. Instead, in its December 10, 2002 order, it dismissed Bullock’s motion without prejudice to refile when the Florida Supreme Court had reviewed the decision in Taylor. On May 29, 2002, several months before that order was written, the State filed a voluntary dismissal of said review in State v. Taylor, 821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002) (table decision). Our affirmance is therefore without prejudice to Bullock’s filing a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

845 So. 2d 316, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7146, 2003 WL 21122662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullock-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack