Jimenez v. State

Full title: Diego JIMENEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Date published: Sep 28, 2011

88 So. 3d 194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

Opinion

No. 3D11–1280.

2011-09-28

Diego JIMENEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami–Dade County, Nushin Sayfie, Judge. Diego Jimenez, in proper person. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General and Jill D. Kramer, Assistant Attorney General for appellee.

EMAS

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami–Dade County, Nushin Sayfie, Judge.
Diego Jimenez, in proper person. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General and Jill D. Kramer, Assistant Attorney General for appellee.
Before ROTHENBERG, LAGOA and EMAS, JJ.

EMAS, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying without evidentiary hearing Diego Jimenez's motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. The trial court's order denied the motion on the basis that it was successive and untimely.

As the State properly concedes, the claims raised by Jimenez are not barred as successive or untimely. See Pleasure v. State, 931 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding successive motions are permitted under Rule 3.800(a) so long as the identical claim has not previously been adjudicated on the merits); accord Mims v. State, 994 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). See alsoFla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a) (“A court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it....”). The trial court erred in summarily denying Jimenez's motion on these grounds.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.