motion to correct sentencing error in Florida

2025“The standard of review applicable to a trial court’s order on a motion to correct sentencing error is de novo.” Pitts v. State, 202 So. 3d 882, 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citing Willard v. State, 22 So. 3d 864, 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)).

2025“The standard of review applicable to a trial court’s order on a motion to correct sentencing error is de novo.” Pitts v. State, 202 So. 3d 882, 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citing Willard v. State, 22 So. 3d 864, 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)).

2025See Jackson, 983 So. 2d at 571 ("[W]e adopted rule 9.140(d), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (now rule 9.140(e)), requiring that sentencing errors be preserved either through a contemporaneous objection or by motion under rule 3.800(b).").

2010We recognize that our prior holding in Harley v. State, 924 So.2d 831, 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), that a vindictive sentence claim may be preserved for appeal in a motion to correct sentencing error is no longer good law in light of Jackson, 983 So.2d 562 .

2026“The standard of review applicable to a trial court’s order on a motion to correct sentencing error is de novo.” Pitts v. State, 202 So. 3d 882, 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

2025“The standard of review applicable to a trial court’s order on a motion to correct sentencing error is de novo.” Pitts v. State, 202 So. 3d 882, 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citing Willard v. State, 22 So. 3d 864, 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)).

2015See A.L.B. v. State, 23 So.3d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing Washington v. State, 814 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), and stating that “[l]ike the Washington court, we conclude that the absence of any objection at the time of sentencing, followed by the failure to file a motion to correct sentencing error before the initial brief was filed, precludes correction of even ‘fundamental’ sentencing errors on direct appeal.”); Starkes v. State, 10 So.3d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (Benton, J., concurring) (concluding that because Starkes did not object at the time of sentencing, or file a rule 3

2009See 814 So.2d at 1189-90 .

2016See Fortner v. State, 23 So.3d 1275, 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (stating that a claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to file a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct a sentence that is not authorized by law is cognizable in a petition filed under rule 9.141(d)).

2016See Fortner v. State, 23 So.3d 1275, 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (stating that a claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to file a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct a sentence that is not authorized by law is cognizable in a petition filed under rule 9.141(c)).

2003See Amendments to Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800(b) and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h), 9.1)0, & 9.600, 761 So.2d 1015,1018 (Fla.1999).

2003See Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h), 9.140 & 9.600, 761 So.2d 1015, 1018 (Fla.2000) ( Amendments II ).

2022See Thomas v. State, 725 So. 2d 1148, 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) ("Because Thomas failed to seek correction of the scrivener's error in the trial court and because the error is not fundamental, he is precluded from raising this issue on appeal."), approved, 763 So. 2 2d 316 (Fla. 2000).1 And if a defendant is precluded from even raising such an error, it follows that for us to respond even by simply noting the error, let alone remanding to allow the trial court to take any action on it, would improperly reward noncompliance with that dictate.2 Here, the error "was not preserved either before this

2021However, we decline to address this issue on appeal because "it was not preserved either before this appeal by objection in the trial court or while this appeal was pending by the filing of a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2)." Perkins v. State, 53 So. 3d 1141, 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); see also Del Rosario v. State, 306 So. 3d 327 , 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (affirming appellant's conviction and sentence without prejudice for appellant to file a rule 3.800(b) motion to correct error in sentencing order despite State's concession of error

2024See D.L.T. v. State, 275 So. 3d 651, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) ("Although failure to comply with E.A.R. [v. State, 4 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2009),] constitutes fundamental error, the absence of any objection at the time of disposition, followed by the failure to file a motion to correct a disposition error pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b), precludes consideration even of fundamental disposition errors on direct appeal."); see also D.M. v. State, 90 So. 3d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (affirming with citation to A.L.B. v. State, 23 So. 3d 190, 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) ("[T]he absence of

2015See A.L.B. v. State, 23 So.3d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing Washington v. State, 814 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), and stating that “[l]ike the Washington court, we conclude that the absence of any objection at the time of sentencing, followed by the failure to file a motion to correct sentencing error before the initial brief was filed, precludes correction of even ‘fundamental’ sentencing errors on direct appeal.”); Starkes v. State, 10 So.3d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (Benton, J., concurring) (concluding that because Starkes did not object at the time of sentencing, or file a rule 3

2024Abraham v. State, 339 So. 3d 370 , 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (citing Brooks v. State, 199 So. 3d 974, 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)).

2023Metellus v. State, 310 So. 3d 90 , 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (citing Brooks v. State, 199 So. 3d 974, 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)).

2023See Mendenhall v. State, 233 So. 3d 1288 , 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (concluding that the error committed by the trial court in failing to state in its written order the condition of probation that the appellant was found to have violated was not preserved for appellate review when the appellant failed to object at trial or raise this specific issue in a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion); cf. Jones v. State, 898 So. 2d 209, 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (finding that the trial court’s error in failing to specify in its written revocation order the condition of probation that it orally found the defendant had v

2023See Mendenhall v. State, 233 So. 3d 1288 , 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (concluding that the error committed by the trial court in failing to state in its written order the condition of probation that the appellant was found to have violated was not preserved for appellate review when the appellant failed to object at trial or raise this specific issue in a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion); cf. Jones v. State, 898 So. 2d 209, 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (finding that the trial court’s error in failing to specify in its written revocation order the condition of probation that it orally found the defendant had v

2017See Thomas v. State, 190 So.3d 222, 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (affirming without prejudice the defendant’s sentence because even though the written sentence failed to comport with the trial court’s oral pronouncement, the defendant failed to properly preserve the sentencing error).

2017See Thomas v. State, 190 So. 3d 222, 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (affirming without prejudice the defendant's sentence because even though the written sentence failed to comport with the trial court's oral pronouncement, the defendant failed to properly preserve the sentencing error).

2014See Woodard v. State, 6 So.3d 726, 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

2014See Woodard v. State, 6 So. 3d 726, 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

2010Brooks v. State, 969 So.2d 238, 241 (Fla.2007).

2009Brooks v. State, 969 So.2d 238, 241 (Fla.2007).

2006See Hakkenberg, 889 So.2d at 937 (citing Snyder v. State, 870 So.2d 140, 143 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Persaud v. State, 821 So.2d 411, 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). [1] "Appellate counsel's failure to preserve the sentencing error... for review by neglecting to file a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion in the trial court constitutes ineffective assistance of appellate *1013 counsel.

2005See Snyder v. State, 870 So.2d 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

2023App. P. 9.140(e) (“A sentencing error may not be raised on appeal unless the alleged error has first been brought to the attention of the lower tribunal: (1) at the time of sentencing; or (2) by motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)”); Brannon v. State, 850 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 2003); Holton v. State, 6 318 So. 3d 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (by not filing a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to 3.800(b), defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that trial court erred in failing to make statutorily required findings of dangerousness under VFOSC stat

2003Therefore, both because a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a sentencing statute involves a pure question of law rather than the erroneous application of a sentencing statute, and because controlling precedent foreclosed relief at the time that the first brief was filed, requiring a motion to correct sentencing error under rule 3.800(b)(2) as a prerequisite to challenging the facial constitutionality of the statute in this case would not serve the purposes for which rule 3.800(b)(2) was adopted. *1067 Finally, I note that in Brannon v. State, 850 So.2d 452 , 2003 WL 21354797 (Fla. J

2005In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we find merit only in appellate counsel’s argument that the trial court erred in denying the motion to correct sentencing error filed pursuant to Florida Rule ' of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).

2005In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we find merit only in appellate counsel’s argument that the trial court erred in denying the motion to correct sentencing error filed pursuant to Florida Rule ' of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).

2026Davis v. State, 88 So. 3d 1055, 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

2025See Johnson v. State, 354 So. 3d 598 , 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (remanding for entry of amended judgment and sentencing documents consistent with the prior grant of a motion to correct sentencing error); Haddock v. State, 255 So. 3d 994, 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (same).

2024See D.L.T. v. State, 275 So. 3d 651, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) ("Although failure to comply with E.A.R. [v. State, 4 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2009),] constitutes fundamental error, the absence of any objection at the time of disposition, followed by the failure to file a motion to correct a disposition error pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b), precludes consideration even of fundamental disposition errors on direct appeal."); see also D.M. v. State, 90 So. 3d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (affirming with citation to A.L.B. v. State, 23 So. 3d 190, 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) ("[T]he absence of

2024See D.L.T. v. State, 275 So. 3d 651, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) ("Although failure to comply with E.A.R. [v. State, 4 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2009),] constitutes fundamental error, the absence of any objection at the time of disposition, followed by the failure to file a motion to correct a disposition error pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b), precludes consideration even of fundamental disposition errors on direct appeal."); see also D.M. v. State, 90 So. 3d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (affirming with citation to A.L.B. v. State, 23 So. 3d 190, 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) ("[T]he absence of

2023Hogle v. State, 250 So. 3d 178, 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

2023See Staples v. State, 277 So. 3d 714 , 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2)(B), if a trial court does not rule on a motion to correct a sentencing error filed while an appeal is pending within sixty days, the motion shall be deemed denied.” (quoting Sirmons v. State, 264 So. 3d 958, 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019))).

2022See Thomas v. State, 725 So. 2d 1148, 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) ("Because Thomas failed to seek correction of the scrivener's error in the trial court and because the error is not fundamental, he is precluded from raising this issue on appeal."), approved, 763 So. 2 2d 316 (Fla. 2000).1 And if a defendant is precluded from even raising such an error, it follows that for us to respond even by simply noting the error, let alone remanding to allow the trial court to take any action on it, would improperly reward noncompliance with that dictate.2 Here, the error "was not preserved either before this

2021See, e.g., Devlin v. State, 224 So. 3d 803, 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (remanding for trial court to correct scrivener's error in judgment that incorrectly reflected the defendant was convicted of the wrong offense without mention of whether a rule 3.800(b) motion was filed); Willingham v. State, 48 So. 3d 173, 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (remanding for trial court to 2 While Mr. Carrion argues that the scrivener's error is an error in the written judgment and, as such, does not constitute a "sentencing" error that can be corrected by way of a rule 3.800(b) motion, we disagree.