Sauve v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sauve v. State

693 So. 2d 561, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12319, 1996 WL 670112

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 20, 1996

DocketNo. 96-02712

StatusPublished

This text of 693 So. 2d 561 (Sauve 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

Sauve v. State, 693 So. 2d 561, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12319, 1996 WL 670112 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Sean Sauve appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear Sauve’s motion, we reverse.

A trial court has jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence at any time; however, during the pendency of a plenary appeal of a judgment and sentence, this jurisdiction is limited to the correction of clerical errors. See Easterling v. State, 596 So.2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Because Sauve’s motion was filed while his appeal was pending in this court and did not seek correction of a clerical error, the trial court was without jurisdiction to determine Sauve’s motion on the merits and should have dismissed it. See First v. State, 677 So.2d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter an order dismissing Sauve’s motion without prejudice to him renewing his claim, if necessary, after the conclusion of his pending direct appeal.

BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Sean Sauve appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear Sauve’s motion, we reverse.

A trial court has jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence at any time; however, during the pendency of a plenary appeal of a judgment and sentence, this jurisdiction is limited to the correction of clerical errors. See Easterling v. State, 596 So.2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Because Sauve’s motion was filed while his appeal was pending in this court and did not seek correction of a clerical error, the trial court was without jurisdiction to determine Sauve’s motion on the merits and should have dismissed it. See First v. State, 677 So.2d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter an order dismissing Sauve’s motion without prejudice to him renewing his claim, if necessary, after the conclusion of his pending direct appeal.

BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 So. 2d 561, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12319, 1996 WL 670112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sauve-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack