Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Robert Sim DIXON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
After Appellant admitted violating some of the conditions of his probation, that probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to eighteen months in prison. As this appeal was pending, he moved in the trial court to correct the revocation order and the sentencing scoresheet pursuant to rule 3.800(b)(2), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court granted in part and denied in part the motion, but by the time its ruling was issued, the trial court no longer had jurisdiction over the motion as more than sixty days had elapsed since the filing of the motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B) (“[I]f the trial court does not file an order ruling on a timely motion within 60 days, the motion shall be deemed denied.”). The trial court's order is therefore a legal nullity, as the State rightly acknowledges. See Taylor v. State, 185 So. 3d 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (explaining that an order entered after the expiration of the time for ruling on a motion under rule 3.800(b)(2) is a nullity).
Accordingly, the cause is remanded to the trial court to enter a corrected order revoking Appellant's probation. We note that the scoresheet dated May 25, 2022, which was presumably used at the revocation proceeding, does not list an additional offense. It does list the offense of use or possession of drug paraphernalia as part of Appellant's prior record, but such an offense also appeared on the original scoresheet dated June 30, 2021. If the May 25, 2022, scoresheet is indeed erroneous as Appellant alleges in his motion to correct, the error is harmless and does not require resentencing since Appellant was sentenced to more than the lowest permissible sentence in his scoresheet. See Harmon v. State, 284 So 3d 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (explaining de minimis scoresheet error was harmless and did not require resentencing where defendant was sentenced to almost two years more than the minimum sentence if a correct scoresheet had been used).
Reversed and Remanded.
Per Curiam.
Ray, Bilbrey, and Long, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 1D22-1733
Decided: September 01, 2023
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)