Tressler v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tressler v. State

120 So. 3d 634, 2013 WL 4734049

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 4, 2013

DocketNo. 1D13-3642

StatusPublished

This text of 120 So. 3d 634 (Tressler 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

Tressler v. State, 120 So. 3d 634, 2013 WL 4734049 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Bennett K. Tressler, Jr., filed a motion to correct illegal sentence with the circuit court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), asserting an entitlement to relief under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). The circuit court struck his motion, finding that because more than 60 days had passed since the date of Tressler’s sentencing in 1996, it had no jurisdiction to modify his sentence. By a petition for writ of mandamus, Tres-sler argues that it is apparent from the circuit court’s order that it misapplied the 60-day time limitation found in rule 3.800(c) to erroneously conclude that it lacked jurisdiction to address his rule 3.800(a) motion. As a relief, he seeks an order of this court directing the circuit court to properly consider and dispose of his motion to correct illegal sentence.

While it does appear that the circuit court may have erred when it found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain Tressler’s rule 3.800(a) motion, the fact that it has entered an order disposing of that motion precludes the granting of mandamus relief. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. However, given that the circuit court has evidently not yet addressed the merits of his Heggs claim, we do so without prejudice to Tressler refiling a proper rule 3.800(a) motion with the circuit court.

VAN NORTWICK, SWANSON, and OSTERHAUS, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Bennett K. Tressler, Jr., filed a motion to correct illegal sentence with the circuit court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), asserting an entitlement to relief under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). The circuit court struck his motion, finding that because more than 60 days had passed since the date of Tressler’s sentencing in 1996, it had no jurisdiction to modify his sentence. By a petition for writ of mandamus, Tres-sler argues that it is apparent from the circuit court’s order that it misapplied the 60-day time limitation found in rule 3.800(c) to erroneously conclude that it lacked jurisdiction to address his rule 3.800(a) motion. As a relief, he seeks an order of this court directing the circuit court to properly consider and dispose of his motion to correct illegal sentence.

While it does appear that the circuit court may have erred when it found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain Tressler’s rule 3.800(a) motion, the fact that it has entered an order disposing of that motion precludes the granting of mandamus relief. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. However, given that the circuit court has evidently not yet addressed the merits of his Heggs claim, we do so without prejudice to Tressler refiling a proper rule 3.800(a) motion with the circuit court.

VAN NORTWICK, SWANSON, and OSTERHAUS, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 So. 3d 634, 2013 WL 4734049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tressler-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack