Rigell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rigell v. State

95 So. 3d 322, 2012 WL 2913254, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11697

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 18, 2012

DocketNo. 4D11-2509

StatusPublished

This text of 95 So. 3d 322 (Rigell 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

Rigell v. State, 95 So. 3d 322, 2012 WL 2913254, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11697 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. He claims that the trial court did not pronounce habitual offender status for him when it corrected a sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) during the pendency of his original appeal of his conviction and sentence. He cites to State v. Collins, 985 So.2d 985 (Fla.2008), as support, but that case deals with resentencing after a reversal of the defendant’s sentencing. In this case the court was merely correcting the sentence by deleting appellant’s prison re-leasee reoffender sentence on the authority of Adams v. State, 750 So.2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), vacated, State v. Adams, 786 So.2d 1168 (Fla.2001). Because this was a ministerial act, and not a complete resentencing, he was not entitled to reconsideration of his entire sentence.

WARNER, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. He claims that the trial court did not pronounce habitual offender status for him when it corrected a sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) during the pendency of his original appeal of his conviction and sentence. He cites to State v. Collins, 985 So.2d 985 (Fla.2008), as support, but that case deals with resentencing after a reversal of the defendant’s sentencing. In this case the court was merely correcting the sentence by deleting appellant’s prison re-leasee reoffender sentence on the authority of Adams v. State, 750 So.2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), vacated, State v. Adams, 786 So.2d 1168 (Fla.2001). Because this was a ministerial act, and not a complete resentencing, he was not entitled to reconsideration of his entire sentence.

WARNER, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 So. 3d 322, 2012 WL 2913254, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rigell-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack