Antonio Rivera v. State of Florida

Rivera · Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida · June 6, 2025 · No. 5D2025-0008

Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida vacated the trial court’s order denying Antonio Rivera’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct an illegal sentence and dismissed the appeal. The court held that the motion was untimely because it was filed after Rivera served his initial appellate brief, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion during the pending direct appeal.

Court
Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida
Writing for the Court
Makar, J.; Kilbane, J.; Pratt, J.
Jurisdiction
Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decision date
June 6, 2025
Docket number
5D2025-0008
Procedural posture
Rivera appealed the Circuit Court for Hernando County's order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct an illegal sentence.
Standard of review
The appellate court reviewed the timeliness of the Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion and the trial court's jurisdiction as legal questions.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Antonio Rivera v. State of Florida
Disposition
vacated

Topics

appellate procedureappellate jurisdictionsentencingcriminal procedurepost-conviction relief

Practice areas

Florida criminal appellate proceduresentencingpost-conviction relief

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Rivera's Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct an illegal sentence was timely when filed after service of his initial appellate brief.
  2. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter an order on the motion during the pendency of Rivera's direct appeal.

Holdings

  1. A Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion is untimely and the remedy is foreclosed when the defendant files it after serving the initial brief in the pending direct appeal.
  2. During the pendency of a direct appeal, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to enter an order on a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Key quotations

Because Rivera filed his rule 3.800(b)(2) motion after his initial brief was filed in this Court, his motion was untimely filed. (2)
During the pendency of a direct appeal, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to enter an order on a motion to correct illegal sentence. (2)
ORDER VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED. (2)

Factual background

Rivera had a direct appeal pending when he filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct an illegal sentence. He filed the motion after serving his initial brief in the direct appeal. The trial court nevertheless entered an order denying the motion.

Procedural history

During the pendency of Rivera's direct appeal, he filed a Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion after serving his initial appellate brief. The trial court denied the motion. The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the motion was untimely and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on it during the direct appeal, vacated the trial court's order, and dismissed the appeal.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…