BENNETT K. TRESSLER, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Court denies mandamus petition challenging circuit court's dismissal of illegal sentence motion based on 60-day rule, but permits refiling because the merits were not addressed.
A circuit court's erroneous application of the 60-day time limitation in Rule 3.800(c) to dismiss a Rule 3.800(a) illegal sentence motion does not warrant mandamus relief once an order disposing of the motion has been entered, but the movant may refile.
[1] A circuit court's erroneous application of the 60-day time limitation in Rule 3.800(c) to dismiss a Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence does not warrant mand…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTressler filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence in 1996 under Rule 3.800(a), asserting entitlement to relief under Heggs v. State. The circuit …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(C) cases and more on FLexlaw
Bennett K. Tressler, Jr., filed a motion to correct illegal sentence with the circuit court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), asserting an entitlement to relief under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). The circuit court struck his motion, finding that because more than 60 days had passed since the date of Tressler’s sentencing in 1996, it had no jurisdiction to modify his sentence. By a petition for writ of mandamus, Tres-sler argues that it is apparent from the circuit court’s order that it misapplied the 60-day time limitation found in rule 3.800(c) to erroneously conclude that it lacked jurisdiction to address his rule 3.800(a) motion. As a relief, he seeks an order of this court directing the circuit court to properly consider and dispose of his motion to correct illegal sentence.
While it does appear that the circuit court may have erred when it found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain Tressler’s rule 3.800(a) motion, the fact that it has entered an order disposing of that motion precludes the granting of mandamus relief. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. However, given that the circuit court has evidently not yet addressed the merits of his Heggs claim, we do so without prejudice to Tressler refiling a proper rule 3.800(a) motion with the circuit court.
VAN NORTWICK, SWANSON, and OSTERHAUS, JJ„ concur.