Hansell v. State
This text of 879 So. 2d 646 (Hansell 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.
Opinion
Ivan L. HANSELL, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; Richard M. Summa, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Charlie Crist, Attorney General; Sherri T. Rollison, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.
WOLF, C.J.
Ivan Hansell appeals his sentence and the summary denial of his 3.800 motion to correct his sentence. Although the State concedes error and the trial court attempted *647 to correct the error, it did so more than 60 days after appellant filed his 3.800 motion. Therefore, we must find the November 7, 2003, sentencing order a nullity. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B); Robinson v. State, 850 So.2d 658, 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter an order on a rule 3.800 motion because no order was entered within 60 days from the filing of the motion, rendering the untimely order a nullity). Additionally, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose or alter Hansell's sentence on November 7, 2003, when there was a pending appeal from the sentence. See State v. Williams, 780 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). We therefore vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
BROWNING and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
879 So. 2d 646, 2004 WL 1401254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hansell-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.