BENNET K. TRESSLER, JR., v. STATE OF FLORIDA

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA BENNETT K. TRESSLER, JR., Petitioner, v. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D13-3642 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ___________________________/ Opinion filed September 3, 2013. Petition for Writ of Mandamus -- Original Jurisdiction. Bennett K. Tressler, Jr., pro se, Petitioner. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent. PER CURIAM. Bennett K. Tressler, Jr., filed a motion to correct illegal sentence with the circuit court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), asserting an entitlement to relief under Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000). The circuit court struck his motion, finding that because more than 60 days had passed since the date of Tressler s sentencing in 1996, it had no jurisdiction to modify his sentence. By a petition for writ of mandamus, Tressler argues that it is apparent from the circuit court s order that it misapplied the 60-day time limitation found in rule 3.800(c) to erroneously conclude that it lacked jurisdiction to address his rule 3.800(a) motion. As a relief, he seeks an order of this court directing the circuit court to properly consider and dispose of his motion to correct illegal sentence. While it does appear that the circuit court may have erred when it found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain Tressler s rule 3.800(a) motion, the fact that it has entered an order disposing of that motion precludes the granting of mandamus relief. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. However, given that the circuit court has evidently not yet addressed the merits of his Heggs claim, we do so without prejudice to Tressler refiling a proper rule 3.800(a) motion with the circuit court. VAN NORTWICK, SWANSON, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.