Walton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Walton v. State

808 So. 2d 1292, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2982, 2002 WL 384997

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 13, 2002

DocketNo. 3D01-232

StatusPublished

This text of 808 So. 2d 1292 (Walton 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

Walton v. State, 808 So. 2d 1292, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2982, 2002 WL 384997 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In our original opinion, Walton v. State, 783 So.2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), we affirmed what we erroneously believed to be the lower court’s denial of a motion to clarify. Because of defendant’s chaotic filing of multiple pleadings both here and in the trial court, this Court inadvertently issued mandates on conflicting opinions. We now correct our error and withdraw our mandate in this case. See Thompson v. Singletary, 659 So.2d 435, 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(citing Washington v. State, 92 Fla. 740, 110 So. 259, 260-61 (1926))(pre-vailing rule is that an appellate court’s jurisdiction ends with the term the judgment was rendered and mandate issued except as to the power to make correction of clerical errors or inadvertences or to recall a mandate sent down by inadvertence, or to vacate a judgment void on its face).

Accordingly, we affirm the lower court’s order granting defendant’s 3.800 motion. We reverse the sentence imposed thereafter in defendant’s absence, and remand for defendant to be resentenced.¹ See Washington, 110 So." at 260(if leave to issue a writ of error corum nobis is granted by the appellate court, the trial court may grant a writ upon a sufficient showing duly made). At this resentencing, defendant will be present and represented by counsel. See Dougherty v. State, 785 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

[1293]*1293Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

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

PER CURIAM.

In our original opinion, Walton v. State, 783 So.2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), we affirmed what we erroneously believed to be the lower court’s denial of a motion to clarify. Because of defendant’s chaotic filing of multiple pleadings both here and in the trial court, this Court inadvertently issued mandates on conflicting opinions. We now correct our error and withdraw our mandate in this case. See Thompson v. Singletary, 659 So.2d 435, 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(citing Washington v. State, 92 Fla. 740, 110 So. 259, 260-61 (1926))(pre-vailing rule is that an appellate court’s jurisdiction ends with the term the judgment was rendered and mandate issued except as to the power to make correction of clerical errors or inadvertences or to recall a mandate sent down by inadvertence, or to vacate a judgment void on its face).

Accordingly, we affirm the lower court’s order granting defendant’s 3.800 motion. We reverse the sentence imposed thereafter in defendant’s absence, and remand for defendant to be resentenced.¹ See Washington, 110 So." at 260(if leave to issue a writ of error corum nobis is granted by the appellate court, the trial court may grant a writ upon a sufficient showing duly made). At this resentencing, defendant will be present and represented by counsel. See Dougherty v. State, 785 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

[1293]*1293Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

808 So. 2d 1292, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2982, 2002 WL 384997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walton-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack