From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 10, 1999
744 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Summary

noting that the trial court's jurisdiction while an appeal is pending is limited to that provided by rule 9.600(d)

Summary of this case from Stang v. State

Opinion

No. 99-03958.

Opinion filed November 10, 1999.

Appeal pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(i) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Richard A. Luce, Judge.


Leonard James Brown challenges the trial court's dismissal of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The trial court based its dismissal upon Carter v. State, 680 So.2d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), and reasoned that it was deprived of jurisdiction to hear the motion because of a pending appeal in this court of the judgment and sentence. We reverse.

In Johnson v. State, 702 So.2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), this court determined that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(d) provides concurrent jurisdiction to trial courts during the pendency of direct appeals to correct sentencing errors, and the rule broadened the variety of these errors subject to correction beyond the mere clerical errors discussed in Carter. As Brown's sentencing occurred after January 1, 1997, the effective date of the rule, he benefits from this interpretation.

Brown complains substantively that his habitual offender sentence is illegal because his conviction for felony petit theft is not subject to enhancement pursuant to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1997). Ridley v. State, 702 So.2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), supports this contention. The record provided by Brown indicates that the trial court imposed a ten-year habitual offender sentence for a third-degree felony that is not subject to this further enhancement after the petit theft is elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony. If this is the case, Brown's sentence is impermissible as a matter of law, and is subject to correction in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding. See Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

Reversed and remanded for consideration of Brown's motion on its merits.

WHATLEY, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Brown v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 10, 1999
744 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

noting that the trial court's jurisdiction while an appeal is pending is limited to that provided by rule 9.600(d)

Summary of this case from Stang v. State

noting that the trial court's jurisdiction while an appeal is pending is limited to that provided by rule 9.600(d)

Summary of this case from Stang v. State

In Brown, the Second District reversed an habitual offender sentence imposed upon a petit theft conviction which had been elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony.

Summary of this case from Vucinich v. State
Case details for

Brown v. State

Case Details

Full title:LEONARD JAMES BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Nov 10, 1999

Citations

744 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Citing Cases

Vucinich v. State

To that end he maintains that his conviction for felony driving without a license, which resulted from the…

Stang v. State

Here, our review of the record reveals that the detention order under which Stang is being held is void and…