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.
Angelo COICOU, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Appellant Angelo Coicou has filed two appeals which we have consolidated. In 4D22-1915, Appellant appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion, which we affirm without discussion.
In 4D22-329, Appellant seeks review of two orders issued on January 6, 2022. First, the trial court denied Appellant's rule 3.800(a) motion to correct his sentence for aggravated assault with firearm (count four). Appellant's motion cited the absence of a mandatory minimum sentence in the court's written order. The trial court properly relied on Earl v. State, 314 So. 3d 1253 (Fla. 2021), to deny relief. See id. at 1255 (“Though the plain language of rule 3.800(a) does not expressly prohibit defendants from seeking to correct unlawfully lenient sentences, we note that defendants are not entitled to such relief under the rule absent a showing of prejudice.”). Here, because Appellant was not prejudiced by the postconviction court's denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion “because the relief he sought was a sentence with more onerous terms than the one that he initially received,” Appellant “cannot show that the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion resulted in harm that may be remedied on appeal.” Id. at 1255-56.
However, the trial court also sua sponte corrected Appellant's sentence on count four to add a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence. Although no nunc pro tunc sentencing documents have been entered by the trial court or clerk following this order and Appellant's sentence prior to the order remained in force, the order nonetheless erroneously granted rule 3.800(a) relief that had already been properly denied. Further, as the State concedes, ten years was not the proper mandatory minimum for this offense. See § 775.087(2)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2012). We thus reverse and remand this matter with instructions to the trial court to vacate the January 6, 2022 sua sponte order and take no further action with respect to Appellant's sentence on count four.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
Forst, J.
Gross and Conner, 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: Nos. 4D22-329, 4D22-1915
Decided: April 19, 2023
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth 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)