State v. Rudolf, 2D00-5478.
| Decision Date | 10 July 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D00-5478.,2D00-5478. |
| Citation | 821 So.2d 385 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. William Theodore RUDOLF, Jr., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and John M. Klawikofsky, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.
William Theodore Rudolf, Jr., pro se.
The State appeals an order granting William Theodore Rudolf, Jr.'s motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The order found that Mr. Rudolf was entitled to be resentenced but did not impose a new sentence. We conclude this is a nonfinal, nonappealable order and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Mr. Rudolf was convicted of grand theft motor vehicle, possession of drug paraphernalia, resisting an officer without violence, and grand theft. The crimes occurred on January 4, 1999. On the two third-degree felony convictions, Mr. Rudolf was sentenced to the maximum sentence allowed by his Criminal Punishment Code sentencing scoresheet—two consecutive sentences of five years, for a total of ten years' incarceration. See §§ 921.002(g),.0024(2), 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (1999). Thereafter, Mr. Rudolf filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(a), arguing that his sentence was illegal pursuant to section 921.001(5), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998). The trial court granted Mr. Rudolf's motion, even though the cited statute apparently had been repealed prior to the date of Mr. Rudolf's offense. See ch. 97-194, § 1, Laws of Fla.
We conclude that Mr. Rudolf's rule 3.800(a) motion did not create a new, separate proceeding. Instead, it is a motion filed in a continuation of the original criminal proceeding. We agree with the Fourth District that this type of order is a nonfinal, nonappealable order. See State v. Delvalle, 745 So.2d 541 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The order requires that Mr. Rudolf's original sentence be replaced with a new sentence, but the new sentence has not yet been imposed. The order is essentially a nonfinal order entered after the entry of an appealable final order. We conclude that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4), permitting appeals of nonfinal orders entered after final orders, does not apply in this criminal context. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(2). We can find no counterpart to rule 9.130(a)(4) in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140. To the extent that section 924.066(2), Florida Statutes (1999), seeks to confer jurisdiction for district courts to review adverse rulings granting or denying collateral or postconviction relief, that statute can apply constitutionally only to final orders. See State v. Gaines, 770 So.2d 1221 (Fla.2000) ().
Because the order the State seeks to appeal is a nonfinal, nonappealable order, the only potential avenue for relief at this time would be by way of common law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodwin v. Iowa Dist. Court for Davis Cnty.
...A.2d 1065, 1069–70 (2007) (finding right to counsel attaches to all criminal actions, including all appeals); State v. Rudolf , 821 So. 2d 385, 386 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002) ; State v. Clements , 461 Md. 280, 192 A.3d 686, 693–94 (2018). And, article I, section 10 of the Iowa Constitution ......
-
Rogers v. State
...2020) ("This court has held that a ‘rule 3.800(a) motion d[oes] not create a new, separate proceeding.’ ") (quoting State v. Rudolf , 821 So. 2d 385, 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ). And so, we conclude that an order granting a rule 3.800(a) motion is not a final order. See Adams v. State , 949 So......
-
Patterson v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...impose a new sentence and end judicial labor. See Adams v. State , 949 So.2d 1125, 1126–27 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) ; State v. Rudolf , 821 So.2d 385, 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ; State v. Delvalle , 745 So.2d 541, 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Accord De La Osa v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , So.3d 259, 261–6......
-
Morgan v. State
...to reconsider that order. Morgan , 293 So. 3d at 1082. Relying on its earlier decisions interpreting rule 3.800(a) in State v. Rudolf , 821 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), and Stewart v. State , 647 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), the Second District rejected Morgan's argument. 293 So. 3d at ......