McGuire v. State, 2D00-1822.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtALTENBERND, Acting Chief.
Citation779 So.2d 571
PartiesMartin McGUIRE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 2D00-1822.,2D00-1822.
Decision Date07 February 2001

779 So.2d 571

Martin McGUIRE, Appellant,
STATE of Florida, Appellee

No. 2D00-1822.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 7, 2001.

779 So.2d 572
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Richard J. Sanders, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant


ALTENBERND, Acting Chief Judge.

Martin McGuire filed a notice of appeal from his judgment and sentence in April 2000. Before filing an initial brief in this court, his appellate counsel filed a motion to correct a sentencing error under Criminal Rule of Procedure 3.800(b)(2) in the trial court. The trial court took immediate steps to resolve this motion. However, a scheduling problem arose because of a change in personnel in the state attorney's office. The State filed a motion to extend the time to resolve this matter in the trial court, and the trial court granted a sixty-day extension.

Appellate counsel, familiar with the Fifth District's decision in Kimbrough v. State, 766 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), and concerned that the trial court's order might not be effective, filed a motion to extend the time in this court. We granted that motion, extending the time to resolve the motion through January 15, 2001. Our unpublished order indicated that an opinion would follow. After we allowed the trial court additional time to resolve the motion, it ruled in favor of Mr. McGuire. As a result, he has now filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of his appeal.

By this published order, we hold that a trial court has concurrent jurisdiction to authorize an extension of time to resolve a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, upon a showing of good cause, prior to the expiration of the original sixty-day period.1 It would seem particularly appropriate to grant such relief based upon an agreed motion. This court has similar authority to extend the time for the resolution of motions filed under rule 3.800(b)(2). See Fla.R.App.P. 9.600(a). Although this case is factually distinguishable from Kimbrough, we recognize that our procedure conflicts with dicta in that case.

Rule 3.800(b) was revised in 2000 to accomplish the goals of the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996, chapter 96-248, Laws of Florida. See In re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.111(e) and 3.800 and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h), 9.140, and 9.600, 761 So.2d 1015 (Fla.1999); Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.800 (ct.commentary). This rule is intended to give the parties a meaningful opportunity to correct sentencing errors in the trial court rather than in the appellate court. This process allows an error to be corrected faster and earlier, and without the need for a published opinion

779 So.2d 573
reversing the trial judge's original error. As demonstrated by this case, it sometimes eliminates the need for an appeal

The procedure described in rule 3.800(b)(2) is admittedly unusual, reflecting its pragmatic origins.2 A more traditional approach would have given the appellate court authority to relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court to consider this motion during the pendency of an appeal. See, e.g., Fla.R.App.P. 9.600(b). However, such a proposal was rejected by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Mapp v. State, 2D07-4485.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 4, 2009
    ...preserved the sentencing errors when the circuit court did not timely rule on the motion. 793 So.2d at 118 (citing McGuire v. State, 779 So.2d 571, 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ("This automatic denial of the motion allows the defendant to preserve the alleged sentencing error for appellate review......
  • Davis v. State, SC04-568.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • November 18, 2004 Davis v. State, 868 So.2d 647 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), which expressly and directly conflicts with the decision in McGuire v. State, 779 So.2d 571 887 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. The Fifth District Court of Appeal recited the facts of ......
  • Hamiter v. State, Case No. 2D18-2104
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 15, 2020
    ...period for good cause, the trial court did not do so, and the period cannot be extended after it has already run. See McGuire v. State, 779 So. 2d 571, 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).2 Indeed, the original opinion carves out no exception but appears to contemplate the filing of an Anders brief only......
  • Miran v. State Of Fla., Case No. 2D09-1388
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 29, 2010
    ...of time was a proper exercise of the trial court's discretion. See Davis v. State, 887 So. 2d 1286, 1288 (Fla. 2004); McGuire v. State, 779 So. 2d 571, 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The State responded, and at a hearing on January 8, 2010, the trial court orally granted Miran's rule 3.800(b)(2) m......
  • 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