St. Lawrence v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

St. Lawrence v. State

773 So. 2d 1291, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 63, 2001 WL 9837

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 5, 2001

DocketNo. 5D00-2984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 773 So. 2d 1291 (St. Lawrence 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

St. Lawrence v. State, 773 So. 2d 1291, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 63, 2001 WL 9837 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

SAWAYA, J.

Appellant, Dennis St. Lawrence, appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Appellant also has a direct appeal pending of his resentencing under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). Rule 3.800(a) explicitly prohibits the filing of a motion during the pendency of a direct appeal. Therefore, in accordance with Daniels v. State, 712 So.2d 765 (Fla.1998), the trial court’s order is vacated.

If appellant elects to refile his Rule 3.800(a) motion after his direct appeal has been decided, he is advised that such a motion is limited to 1) claims that a sentence fails to comport with statutory or constitutional limits or 2) errors that are the result of a scoresheet miscalculation. See State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429 (Fla.1998); Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995). Moreover, only those issues which can be resolved as a matter of law, without an evidentiary hearing, may be considered. See Mancino.

ORDER VACATED.

GRIFFIN and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

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

SAWAYA, J.

Appellant, Dennis St. Lawrence, appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Appellant also has a direct appeal pending of his resentencing under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). Rule 3.800(a) explicitly prohibits the filing of a motion during the pendency of a direct appeal. Therefore, in accordance with Daniels v. State, 712 So.2d 765 (Fla.1998), the trial court’s order is vacated.

If appellant elects to refile his Rule 3.800(a) motion after his direct appeal has been decided, he is advised that such a motion is limited to 1) claims that a sentence fails to comport with statutory or constitutional limits or 2) errors that are the result of a scoresheet miscalculation. See State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429 (Fla.1998); Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995). Moreover, only those issues which can be resolved as a matter of law, without an evidentiary hearing, may be considered. See Mancino.

ORDER VACATED.

GRIFFIN and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

773 So. 2d 1291, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 63, 2001 WL 9837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-lawrence-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack