Manata v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Manata v. State

226 So. 3d 1027, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12451, 2017 WL 3722468

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 30, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D15-1925

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 So. 3d 1027 (Manata 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

Manata v. State, 226 So. 3d 1027, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12451, 2017 WL 3722468 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION GRANTING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, WITHDRAWING OPINION ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE, AND GRANTING MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed a motion .for clarification asking this court to clarify its “Opinion on Motion to Enforce Mandate,” filed on April 28, 2017. We grant the motion to clarify, withdraw the “Opinion on Motion to Enforce Mandate” filed on April 28, 2017, and issue this opinion in its place.

The appellant was convicted of organized scheme to defraud and grand theft. On appeal, this Court held that her convictions for both crimes violate double jeopardy principles, and ordered the lower court to vacate the grand theft conviction. Manata v. State, 213 So.3d 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). We also affirmed the conviction for organized scheme to defraud, but remanded for the limited purpose of resentencing on that count. Id. Instead, at the State’s request the trial court resentenced the appellant on the grand theft conviction, and the State entered a nolle prosse on the organized scheme to defraud conviction. As numerous courts, including this one, have held:

When an appellate court issues a mandate, compliance with the mandate by the circuit court is purely a ministerial act. The circuit court does not have the authority to modify, nullify or evade that mandate.

Huffman v. Moore, 834 So.2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (citations omitted). Thus, we grant the motion to enforce mandate and direct the trial court to quash the order resentencing the appellant on the grand theft. The trial court is again directed to vacate the appellant’s conviction and sentence for grand. theft and to resentence her for the organized scheme to defraud conviction. The Staté’s nolle prosse of the appellant’s conviction for organized scheme to, dfefraud is a nullity, and shall have ho effect on remand. See Muhammad v. State, 99 So.3d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Flores v. State, 958 So.2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“The State has no power to nolle pros a charge after jeopardy has attached. Therefore,' the State has no authority to nolle pros a charge after a jury is sworn.”).

ROBERTS, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.

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

OPINION GRANTING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, WITHDRAWING OPINION ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE, AND GRANTING MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed a motion .for clarification asking this court to clarify its “Opinion on Motion to Enforce Mandate,” filed on April 28, 2017. We grant the motion to clarify, withdraw the “Opinion on Motion to Enforce Mandate” filed on April 28, 2017, and issue this opinion in its place.

The appellant was convicted of organized scheme to defraud and grand theft. On appeal, this Court held that her convictions for both crimes violate double jeopardy principles, and ordered the lower court to vacate the grand theft conviction. Manata v. State, 213 So.3d 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). We also affirmed the conviction for organized scheme to defraud, but remanded for the limited purpose of resentencing on that count. Id. Instead, at the State’s request the trial court resentenced the appellant on the grand theft conviction, and the State entered a nolle prosse on the organized scheme to defraud conviction. As numerous courts, including this one, have held:

When an appellate court issues a mandate, compliance with the mandate by the circuit court is purely a ministerial act. The circuit court does not have the authority to modify, nullify or evade that mandate.

Huffman v. Moore, 834 So.2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (citations omitted). Thus, we grant the motion to enforce mandate and direct the trial court to quash the order resentencing the appellant on the grand theft. The trial court is again directed to vacate the appellant’s conviction and sentence for grand. theft and to resentence her for the organized scheme to defraud conviction. The Staté’s nolle prosse of the appellant’s conviction for organized scheme to, dfefraud is a nullity, and shall have ho effect on remand. See Muhammad v. State, 99 So.3d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Flores v. State, 958 So.2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“The State has no power to nolle pros a charge after jeopardy has attached. Therefore,' the State has no authority to nolle pros a charge after a jury is sworn.”).

ROBERTS, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 So. 3d 1027, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12451, 2017 WL 3722468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manata-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack