From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richendollar v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Oct 6, 2010
46 So. 3d 100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Opinion

No. 1D10-2652.

October 6, 2010.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Baker County. Phyllis M. Rosier, Judge.

Johnny Richendollar, pro se, Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Joshua R. Heller, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.


The appellant challenges the summary denial of his postconviction motion. The postconviction court treated the appellant's motion as though it were filed pursuant to rule 3.800(c) and denied it as untimely. However, the appellant's motion alleges that the portion of his sentence which prohibits contact with anyone under the age of 18 is illegal. If such a condition is included in the appellant's sentence, it is not statutorily authorized and is impermissibly vague. See Johnson v. State, 27 So.3d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Calidonio v. State, 951 So.2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Because the appellant's motion should have been considered as timely filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), we reverse for consideration of the appellant's motion on the merits.

Accordingly, we hereby REVERSE the postconviction court's order and REMAND for consideration of the appellant's motion on the merits.

BENTON, PADOVANO, and CLARK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Richendollar v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Oct 6, 2010
46 So. 3d 100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)
Case details for

Richendollar v. State

Case Details

Full title:Johnny RICHENDOLLAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Oct 6, 2010

Citations

46 So. 3d 100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)