From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Neill v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 4, 2003
841 So. 2d 629 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Opinion

Case No. 2D01-2870.

Opinion filed April 4, 2003.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Maynard F. Swanson, Jr., Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ronald Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


James Michael O'Neill appeals the sentences imposed for several of the nine offenses with which he was charged based on a single crime spree. O'Neill entered a negotiated no contest plea to all counts in the information with the understanding that he would be sentenced to no less than fourteen and no more than twenty years in prison. After a sentencing hearing, the court imposed a twenty-year sentence on each offense, concurrent with each other, and imposed a three-year minimum mandatory on all nine counts for the use of a firearm.

O'Neill raised two sentencing issues in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). The trial court ruled on the motion but not within sixty days as the rule requires. Accordingly, the motion is deemed denied. See Jackson v. State, 793 So.2d 117, 118 (Fla.2d DCA 2001).

Of the several issues raised on appeal, one has merit. We agree, and the State concedes, that the minimum mandatory provision should be stricken from counts seven and nine. We reverse and remand for that purpose. In all other respects we affirm. From our review of the record and the terms of the negotiated plea agreement, we conclude that a claimed scoresheet error did not adversely affect the sentence imposed.See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions to the trial court to strike the minimum mandatory provision of counts seven and nine.

SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

O'Neill v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 4, 2003
841 So. 2d 629 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
Case details for

O'Neill v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES MICHAEL O'NEILL, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Apr 4, 2003

Citations

841 So. 2d 629 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Citing Cases

Whitmore v. State

The trial court granted Whitmore's motion but not within sixty days as the rule requires; the trial court was…

Smith v. State

It appears from the record that the trial court did not rule on the motion within sixty days. Accordingly, we…