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.
Timothy Wayne HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee,
Timothy Wayne Hernandez appeals his judgment and sentence for contempt.1 On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in imposing his contempt sentence consecutive to any sentences imposed after the resolution of his pending felony case. The State has properly conceded error, and we reverse his sentence.2
Hernandez was charged with multiple felonies. At a hearing, Hernandez was held in direct criminal contempt for his behavior in court. The circuit court sentenced him to six months in county jail to be served consecutive to any sentence Hernandez would receive in his existing criminal case. During the pendency of this appeal, Hernandez filed a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), but the motion was deemed denied when the circuit court failed to timely rule on it.3
On appeal, Hernandez argues that his sentence is illegal because it was ordered to commence at the conclusion of a future sentence yet to be announced. The State has properly conceded error. As this court has previously recognized, a court may not impose a sentence “consecutive to a sentence yet to be imposed on another offense.” Johnson v. State, 538 So. 2d 553, 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Accordingly, we affirm Hernandez's judgment for contempt but reverse his sentence and remand for the entry of a corrected sentence.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
FOOTNOTES
1. Although the contempt charge was assigned a misdemeanor case number, we have jurisdiction. See Schaab v. State, 33 So. 3d 763, 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
2. Hernandez does not challenge his contempt judgment. Accordingly, we affirm it without comment.
3. Although the circuit court did eventually enter an order on the motion, the order was a nullity because it was entered beyond the sixty-day time period specified in the rule. See Miran v. State, 46 So. 3d 186, 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
PER CURIAM.
CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Case No. 2D18-4310
Decided: October 11, 2019
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second 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)