Corrected Rehearing Order
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Supreme Court of Florida
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2013
CORRECTED ORDER
CASE NO(S).: SC11-1679
IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE AND THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
The Criminal Court Steering Committee's Motion for Rehearing and
Clarification is hereby granted in part, as discussed below.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is replaced with the following
language:
(a) Correction. A court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it,
or an incorrect calculation made by it in a sentencing scoresheet, when it is
affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement
to that relief, provided that a party may not file a motion to correct an illegal
sentence under this subdivision during the time allowed for the filing of a motion
under subdivision (b)(1) or during the pendency of a direct appeal. A defendant
may seek correction of an allegedly erroneous sexual predator designation under
this subdivision, but only when it is apparent from the face of the record that the
defendant did not meet the criteria for designation as a sexual predator. All orders
denying motions under this subdivision shall include a statement that the movant
has the right to appeal within 30 days of rendition of the order.
The issue of successive motions under rule 3.800(a) and forms for use in
postconviction proceedings will be referred to the Florida Bar's Criminal Procedure
Rules Committee.
Case No. SC11-1679
Page 2
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1)(B), as amended in the
Court's April 18, 2013, opinion in this case, is replaced with the following
language:
(B) Unless the trial court determines that the motion can be resolved as a matter of
law without a hearing, it shall hold a calendar call no later than 20 days from the
filing of the motion, with notice to all parties, for the express purpose of either
ruling on the motion or determining the need for an evidentiary hearing. If an
evidentiary hearing is needed, it shall be set no more than 20 days from the date of
the calendar call. Within 60 days from the filing of the motion, the trial court shall
file an order ruling on the motion. If no order is filed within 60 days, the motion
shall be considered denied. A party may file a motion for rehearing of any order
entered under subdivisions (a) and (b) of this rule within 15 days of the date of
service of the order or within 15 days of the expiration of the time period for filing
an order if no order is filed. A response may be filed within 10 days of service of
the motion. The trial court's order disposing of the motion for rehearing shall be
filed within 15 days of the response but not later than 40 days from the date of the
order of which rehearing is sought. If no order is filed within 40 days, the motion
is deemed denied. A timely filed motion for rehearing shall toll rendition of the
order subject to appellate review and the order shall be deemed rendered 40 days
from the order of which rehearing is sought, or upon the filing of a written order
denying the motion for rehearing, whichever is earlier.
The Court declines to further amend subdivision (h).
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1)(J), as amended in the
Court's April 18, 2013, opinion in this case, is replaced with the following
language:
(J) granting relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801, 3.850, 3.851, or
3.853;
Case No. SC11-1679
Page 3
Full opinion to follow.
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA,
and PERRY, JJ., concur.
A True Copy
Test:
__________________________
John A. Tomasino
Clerk, Supreme Court
Served:
ANDREW MCBRIDE STANTON
JIMMIE LEE TENNANT
ARTHUR IVAN JACOBS
MICHAEL J. MINERVA
JAMIE BILLOTTE MOSES
HON. JAMES C. HANKINSON, JUDGE
KRIS EDWARD HELTON
GLEN PHILLIP GIFFORD
SCOTT N. ERRICO
JOE F. DAIAK, JR.
MICHAEL ROBERT UFFERMAN
BART SCHNEIDER
SETH ELLIOT MILLER
SONYA RUDENSTINE
DAVID W. TALLEY
MARK CALIEL
JONATHAN N. DIAMENT
HEATHER SAVAGE TELFER
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR.
HON. KEVIN M. EMAS, JUDGE
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.