Whitmore v. State, 910 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Whitmore v. State, 910 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: De la Fuente v. State (fladistctapp, 2011-04-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) De la Fuente v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
P. 3.800(b)(2); Whitmore v. State, 910 So.2d 308, 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citing O’Neill v. State, 841 So.2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miran v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Mapp v. State, 18 So.3d 33, 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (striking out-of-time order purporting to rule on a pending rule 3.800(b)(2) motion); Whitmore v. State, 910 So.2d 308, 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (noting that order granting relief on rule 3.800(b)(2) motion was a nullity when it was entered two days after the permissible time period).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pearce v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Whitmore v. State, 910 So.2d 308, 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Sessions v. State, 907 So.2d 572, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
discussed Cited "see" MIRTO v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Whitmore v. State, 910 So.2d 308, 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (finding that an order granting a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion was a nullity because it was filed sixty-two days after the filing of the motion).
cited Cited "see" Rule v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Whitmore v. State, 910 So.2d 308, 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
discussed Cited "see" Manning v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Whitmore v. State, 910 So.2d 308, 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Alix v. State, 799 So.2d 359, 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). [2] As to the merits of Manning's challenge to his current sentence, it is well established that the combined terms of incarceration and probation must not exceed the statutory maximum for the offense.
cited Cited "see" Jackson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Whitmore v. State, 910 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
cited Cited "see" Moore v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Whitmore v. State, 910 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Marian WHITMORE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
2D04-1303.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Aug 31, 2005.
910 So. 2d 308
2005 WL 2086349
Villanti.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ronald Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

VILLANTI, Judge.

Marian Whitmore was convicted of multiple offenses in five cases. She appealed. While her appeal was pending, she filed a motion to correct sentencing errors under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). Because the trial court's order granting the motion was not timely, we reverse.

In Whitmore's rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, she claimed that it was illegal to sentence her to drug offender probation in two cases in which she was charged with three counts of uttering a forged check and two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card. The trial court granted Whitmore's motion but not within sixty days as the rule requires; the trial court was two days late in granting relief. Accordingly, the court's order is a nullity, and Whitmore's motion is deemed denied. O'Neill v. State, 841 So.2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing Jackson v. State, 793 So.2d 117, 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)). However, the issue Whitmore raised in her motion is preserved for review. Jackson, 793 So.2d at 118.

[*309] Uttering a forged check and fraudulent use of a credit card are not enumerated offenses subject to drug offender probation. See § 948.034(1), Fla. Stat. (2000); Buswell v. State, 855 So.2d 687, 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Therefore, as the State correctly concedes, it was error for the trial court to sentence her to drug offender probation in cases 00-1010 and 00-1635. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an order striking the drug offender probation conditions in cases 00-1010 and 00-1635.

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.