Bizzell v. State

Decision Date19 October 2005
Docket NumberNo. 2D02-5724.,2D02-5724.
Citation912 So.2d 386
PartiesFrank Anton BIZZELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

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

LaROSE, Judge.

Frank Bizzell appeals the trial court's November 14, 2002, order revoking his probation in case 92-1323 and sentencing him to consecutive thirty-year prison terms for three counts of attempted sexual battery. This sentence was consecutive to a sentence imposed in a related case, 92-1322. After filing this appeal, but before filing an initial brief, Mr. Bizzell, pro se, moved to correct a sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). He asserted that the sentence in case 92-1323 could be no longer than the originally imposed concurrent twenty-year terms for each count. The trial court granted Mr. Bizzell's pro se motion. It entered an amended sentence of concurrent twenty-year prison terms for each count in case 92-1323, consecutive to the sentence in case 92-1322.

Subsequently, Mr. Bizzell's appellate counsel filed a substantively identical and timely rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct a sentencing error. Although the amended sentence was correct, appellate counsel noted that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider Mr. Bizzell's pro se rule 3.800(b)(2) motion because the appeal was pending. The trial court granted this motion, vacated the amended sentence, and ordered a status hearing for the purpose of resentencing.

The trial court's order vacating the amended sentence was correct, albeit for the wrong reason. See Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901, 906-07 (Fla.2002) (appellate court may affirm trial court ruling that "reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons" as long as "there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record") (quoting Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638, 644 (Fla.1999)). The filing of a notice of appeal divests the trial court of rule 3.800(a) jurisdiction. Rydberg v. State, 891 So.2d 572, 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). But, rule 3.800(b), under which Mr. Bizzell proceeded, allows the filing of a motion to correct a sentencing error after a notice of appeal is filed but before the filing of the initial brief. Although Mr. Bizzell's initial pro se motion was timely, the trial court, nevertheless, should have stricken it because Mr. Bizzell had counsel at the time. See Logan v. State, 846 So.2d 472, 479 (Fla.2003); Coffelt v. State, 905 So.2d 269, 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Lee v. State, 779 So.2d 341, 342 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Rodriguez v. State, 881 So.2d 671, 673 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Compare Lopez v. State, 905 So.2d 1045, 1047 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (exception for filing of pro se rule 3.800(b...

To continue reading

Request your trial
266 cases
  • Martin v. Sec'y
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • October 7, 2014
    ...raise claims of insufficiency of the evidence, improper sentencing procedure, and ineffective assistance of counsel); Bizzell v. State,912 So.2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (motions to correct a sentencing error are allowed after a notice of appeal is filed but before filing the initial brief); ......
  • Pearce v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 23, 2014
    ...2d DCA 2009); O'Neill v. State, 6 So.3d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Steward v. State, 931 So.2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Bizzell v. State, 912 So.2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Shortridge v. State, 884 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Campbell v. State, 884 So.2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Brown v. State,......
  • Thompkins v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 22, 2014
    ...2d DCA 2009) ; Hughes v. State, 22 So.3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ; Waiter v. State, 965 So.2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ; Bizzell v. State, 912 So.2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ; Nedd v. State, 855 So.2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ; West v. State, 115 So.3d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) ; Collins v. State, ......
  • Harper v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 2, 2014
    ...Hughes v. State, 22 So.3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Harper v. State, 999 So.2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (table decision); Bizzell v. State, 912 So.2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Brown v. State, 827 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Anderson v. State, 779 So.2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Harris v. State, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT