From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smart v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Sep 30, 2016
200 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

Opinion

No. 5D16–1548.

09-30-2016

Robert G. SMART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Robert G. Smart, Raiford, pro se. No Appearance for Appellee.


Robert G. Smart, Raiford, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

COHEN, J.

Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on Smart's motion to correct illegal sentence during the pendency of his direct appeal, we reverse the order denying the motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a)(1) ; Padilla–Padial v. State, 152 So.3d 51, 52 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). We express no opinion on the merits of the motion.

Although the judgment and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, the mandate did not issue until after the trial court's ruling on the motion. See

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LAWSON, C.J., and PALMER, J., concur.

Smart v. State, 189 So.3d 798 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).


Summaries of

Smart v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Sep 30, 2016
200 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)
Case details for

Smart v. State

Case Details

Full title:Robert G. SMART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Date published: Sep 30, 2016

Citations

200 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

Citing Cases

Lesende v. State

The trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion because it was filed during the pendency of the…