From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sherwood v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 6, 1999
745 So. 2d 378 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Summary

holding that an illegal sentence can only be corrected while the defendant is serving his sentence

Summary of this case from Silverstein v. State

Opinion

No. 99-2293.

Opinion filed October 6, 1999.

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800(a) motion from the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Edward A. Garrison, Judge; L.T. No. 89-6316 CFA02, 89-5246 CFA02.

Mark Sherwood, Lake City, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don. M. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.


Appellant filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) to correct illegal sentences because the trial court originally sentenced him to serve an eighteen month sentence and then entered a subsequent order increasing the length of sentence to three years. These sentences have been served completely, and appellant is not incarcerated or under probation as a result of these orders. While rule 3.800(a) permits an illegal sentence to be corrected at any time, we conclude that the rule means that the sentence can be corrected at any time while the sentence is being served. Correction of a sentence long since completed serves no useful purpose that we can detect. A double jeopardy violation cannot be corrected once a sentence has been completed. See generally In re Bradley, 318 U.S. 50, 63 S.Ct. 470, 87 L.Ed. 608 (1943) ; Ex Parte Lange, 85 U.S. 163, 21 L.Ed. 872 (1876). While appellant contends that the convictions upon which these allegedly illegal sentences were based are being used to enhance a subsequent sentence, the length of the prior sentence is not an issue.

Affirmed.

WARNER, C.J., DELL and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sherwood v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 6, 1999
745 So. 2d 378 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

holding that an illegal sentence can only be corrected while the defendant is serving his sentence

Summary of this case from Silverstein v. State

concluding that a sentence cannot be corrected once it has been served

Summary of this case from Teart v. State

affirming order denying rule 3.800 motion, where sentences had been served and appellant was not incarcerated or on probation

Summary of this case from Gunn v. State

In Sherwood, the Fourth District said that "[w]hile rule 3.800(a) permits an illegal sentence to be corrected at any time... the rule means that the sentence can be corrected at any time while the sentence is being served."

Summary of this case from Pettit v. State

In Sherwood v. State, 745 So.2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 763 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 2000), the appellant filed a motion to correct his sentence after it had been completely served.

Summary of this case from Smith v. Kearney
Case details for

Sherwood v. State

Case Details

Full title:MARK SHERWOOD, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Oct 6, 1999

Citations

745 So. 2d 378 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

Affirmed. See Toomer v. State, 895 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Teart v. State, 866 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1st…

Williams v. State

Affirmed. See Toomer v. State, 895 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Teart v. State, 866 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1st…