Gallegos v. State

63 So. 3d 20, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5187, 2011 WL 1377067
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 13, 2011
Docket2D09-4699, 2D09-4704
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 63 So. 3d 20 (Gallegos 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
Gallegos v. State, 63 So. 3d 20, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5187, 2011 WL 1377067 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

CASANUEVA, Chief Judge.

We affirm Mr. Gallegos’ judgments and sentences without comment. However, we write to direct the trial court on remand to strike the postsentence order that it entered without jurisdiction.

On August 5, 2010, while this appeal was pending, Mr. Gallegos filed in the trial court a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). The trial court must rule on such a motion within sixty days of filing or it is deemed denied. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(1)(B). However, it did not issue an order on the motion until January 20, 2011, long after the sixty days had passed. That order found that Mr. Gallegos’ claims had merit and gave the State twenty days to choose between two alternative types of relief.

“When a trial court enters an order on a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion outside of the time permitted for ruling on such a motion, the order is deemed a nullity and must be stricken.” Miran v. State, 46 So.3d 186, 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); see also Mapp v. State, 18 So.3d 33, 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (striking an out-of-time order granting a rule 3.800(b) motion); Jackson v. State, 950 So.2d 1267, 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that an order rendered more than sixty days after the filing of a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion was a nullity). Therefore, while we affirm the judgments and sentences, we must remand to the trial court to strike the January 20, 2011, order and any subsequent orders entered on the rule 3.800(b)(2) motion.

Judgments and sentences affirmed; remanded with instructions.

VILLANTI and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

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

Related

Youman v. State
112 So. 3d 693 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Williams v. State
72 So. 3d 285 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 So. 3d 20, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5187, 2011 WL 1377067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallegos-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.