Jacobs v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jacobs v. State

839 So. 2d 918, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3364, 2003 WL 1093002

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 14, 2003

DocketNo. 2D02-4166

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 839 So. 2d 918 (Jacobs 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

Jacobs v. State, 839 So. 2d 918, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3364, 2003 WL 1093002 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

COVINGTON, Judge.

Robert Jacobs 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). Jacobs 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 Jacobs’ 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 Jacobs’ motion as facially insufficient. Instead, in its August 19, 2002 order, it dismissed Jacobs’ motion without prejudice to refile when the Florida Supreme Court had reviewed the decision in Taylor. On May 29, 2002, the State filed a voluntary dismissal of said review in State v. Taylor, 821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002) (table). Our affir-mance is therefore without prejudice to Jacobs’ filing a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion.

FULMER and KELLY, JJ., Concur.

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

COVINGTON, Judge.

Robert Jacobs 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). Jacobs 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 Jacobs’ 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 Jacobs’ motion as facially insufficient. Instead, in its August 19, 2002 order, it dismissed Jacobs’ motion without prejudice to refile when the Florida Supreme Court had reviewed the decision in Taylor. On May 29, 2002, the State filed a voluntary dismissal of said review in State v. Taylor, 821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002) (table). Our affir-mance is therefore without prejudice to Jacobs’ filing a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion.

FULMER and KELLY, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

839 So. 2d 918, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3364, 2003 WL 1093002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobs-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack