Durden v. State

948 So. 2d 1045, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2602, 2007 WL 548824
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 23, 2007
DocketNo. 2D06-3299
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 948 So. 2d 1045 (Durden 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
Durden v. State, 948 So. 2d 1045, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2602, 2007 WL 548824 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

WALLACE, Judge.

David P. Durden appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentencing errors filed in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1). The trial court concluded that Mr. Dur-den’s motion was untimely, treated the motion as if it had been filed under rule 3.800(a), and denied the motion on the merits. We reverse the trial court’s summary denial of Mr. Durden’s motion to correct sentencing errors, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Rule 3.800(b)(1) allows defendants in criminal cases to file a motion to correct sentencing errors in the trial court during the time allowed for the filing of a notice of appeal of the sentence. In conjunction with rule 3.800(b)(1), Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h) delays the rendition of the final order until the trial court disposes of the rule 3.800(b)(1) motion.1 Therefore, a defendant has thirty days to file a notice of appeal after the trial court rules on any sentencing error preserved by a 3.800(b)(1) motion.

On September 12, 2005, the trial court resentenced Mr. Durden in case numbers CRC93-07740CFANO-A and CRC94-00832CFANO-A. On October 11, 2005, twenty-nine days later, Mr. Durden timely filed his rule 3.800(b)(1) in both cases. Therefore, the trial court erred in concluding that Mr. Durden’s motion was untimely and incorrectly treated it as a rule 3.800(a) motion.

For these reasons, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of Mr. Durden’s motion to correct sentencing errors. On remand, the trial court shall treat the motion as having been filed under rule 3.800(b)(1) and rule on the motion accordingly. If the trial court does not rule on the motion within sixty days of the issuance of this court’s mandate, then the motion shall be considered to be denied. We note that Mr. Durden will have thirty days from the disposition of his motion within which to appeal his resentencing.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ALTENBERND and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.

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

Related

Junita Sawyer v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
948 So. 2d 1045, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2602, 2007 WL 548824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durden-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.