Robert G. Smart v. State

200 So. 3d 1285, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14625, 2016 WL 5630684
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 30, 2016·No. 5D16-1548·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

COHEN, J.

Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on Smart’s motion to correct illegal sentence during the pendency of his direct appeal, we reverse the order denying the motion. 1 See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a)(1); Padilla-Padial v. State, 152 So.3d 51, 52 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). We express no opinion on the merits of the motion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LAWSON, C.J., and PALMER, J„ concur.
1

. Although the judgment and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, the mandate did not issue until after the trial court’s ruling on the motion. See Smart v. State, 189 So.3d 798 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

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

Robert G. Smart v. State, 200 So. 3d 1285, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14625, 2016 WL 5630684 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

200 So. 3d 1285 (Robert G. Smart v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Antonio Rivera v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025