Jimenez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jimenez v. State

88 So. 3d 194, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15324, 2011 WL 4467339

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 28, 2011

DocketNo. 3D11-1280

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 88 So. 3d 194 (Jimenez 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

Jimenez v. State, 88 So. 3d 194, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15324, 2011 WL 4467339 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

EMAS, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying without evidentiary hearing Diego Jimenez’s motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. The trial court’s order denied the motion on the basis that it was successive and untimely.

[195]*195As the State properly concedes, the claims raised by Jimenez are not barred as successive or untimely. See Pleasure v. State, 931 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding successive motions are permitted under Rule 3.800(a) so long as the identical claim has not previously been adjudicated on the merits); accord Mims v. State, 994 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). See also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a) (“A court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it....”). The trial court erred in summarily denying Jimenez’s motion on these grounds.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

EMAS, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying without evidentiary hearing Diego Jimenez’s motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. The trial court’s order denied the motion on the basis that it was successive and untimely.

[195]*195As the State properly concedes, the claims raised by Jimenez are not barred as successive or untimely. See Pleasure v. State, 931 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding successive motions are permitted under Rule 3.800(a) so long as the identical claim has not previously been adjudicated on the merits); accord Mims v. State, 994 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). See also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a) (“A court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it....”). The trial court erred in summarily denying Jimenez’s motion on these grounds.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 So. 3d 194, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15324, 2011 WL 4467339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimenez-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack