Easterling v. State, 92-00618
| Decision Date | 11 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-00618,92-00618 |
| Citation | 596 So.2d 103 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Weekly D708 Michael W. EASTERLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael Easterling appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse.
Appellant alleged that his written sentence fails to reflect two and one-half years' credit for time served. He further alleged that at sentencing, the trial court orally pronounced that he was entitled to credit for time served in the amount of two and one-half years. The written sentence, which is attached to the motion, reflects credit for 197 days plus credit for time served on his prior incarceration in this case. The trial court denied the motion without attachments. Based on the written sentence alone, we are unable to determine whether the appellant received the proper amount of credit for time served and therefore must reverse. On remand, if the trial court should again deny the motion, it must attach portions of the record conclusively refuting appellant's allegations.
Appellant's direct appeal was pending when he filed the motion and when the trial court entered the order on the motion. His direct appeal is still pending, and neither the record on appeal nor any brief has been filed. Because the trial court has concurrent jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence which may have resulted from a clerical oversight, the trial court may again rule on the motion after remand. See Barber v. State, 590 So.2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Morales
...June 19, 1996); Curry v. State, 657 So.2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), review granted, 676 So.2d 412 (Fla. June 25, 1996); Easterling v. State, 596 So.2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Barber v. State, 590 So.2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). It seems to me that under the terms of Florida Rule of Appellate Pro......
-
Denson v. State, 97-00611
...could address only a clerical error during the pendency of an appeal. This ruling reconfirmed our decision in Easterling v. State, 596 So.2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), which was based on Barber v. State, 590 So.2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Carter proved to be a short-lived decision because rule ......
-
Jean v. State, 93-03323
...for time served. See, e.g., Thomas v. State, 18 Fla.L.Weekly D2096, 1994 WL 51721 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 22, 1993); Easterling v. State, 596 So.2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). That is, sentences which reflect inadequate credit are "illegal." An illegal sentence is considered fundamental error becau......
-
Carter v. State, 96-01035
...to rule on anything more than a clerical error under rule 3.800(a) when the defendant has a direct appeal pending. In Easterling v. State, 596 So.2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), we held that the trial court had "concurrent jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence which may have resulted from ......