HON. MORTON L. PERRY, AS ONE OF THE JUDGES OF THE COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. JAMES TERRY MILLS AND TRIDA ANN GILBERT, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1978-03-21
No. 77-299
Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.
357 So. 2d 425 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1978) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.

Synopsis

Judge Perry was prohibited by writ of prohibition from enforcing jail sentences against two defendants after they paid fines in satisfaction of alternative sentences. The appellate court reversed, holding that Rule 3.800 (limiting sentence correction to 60 days) does not apply when a judge is executing the original sentence rather than correcting or reducing it, and that courts retain jurisdiction to correct clerical errors in their records.


Holding

Rule 3.800 does not apply when a judge is executing the original sentence rather than correcting an illegal sentence or reducing a legal sentence. A court of record retains jurisdiction, even after term expiration, to correct clerical mistakes in its own judgments and records. Judge Perry therefore had full jurisdiction to execute the sentences he originally imposed.


Headnotes

[1] A court may correct clerical mistakes in its judgments and records even after the term has expired.

[2] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, concerning the correction and reduction of sentences, does not apply to the execution of original sentences.

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“Rule 3.800 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, entitled "Correction and Reduction of Sentences," provides, "(a) A court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it. (b) A court may reduce a legal sentence imposed by it . . within sixty days after such imposition . . ."”

Establishes the text of the rule and its distinction between correction (unlimited) and reduction (60-day limit)

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Judge Perry convicted Mills and Gilbert in May 1976 of prostitution-related offenses and imposed sentences of jail time and fines as alternatives (45 …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by Morton L. Perry, judge of the county court for Dade County, from a rule absolute in prohibition, prohibiting him from exercising any further jurisdiction in two county court cases involving defendants James Terry Mills and Tricia Ann Gilbert. The rule, which was issued following an evidentiary hearing by the circuit judge sitting in his appellate capacity, contains lengthy findings of fact and conclusions of law, including the following:

On May 19, 1976, in a non-jury trial before Judge Perry, Mills was tried and convicted of maintaining a house of prostitution and operating a massage establishment without a registered masseur or masseuse, and Gilbert was tried and convicted of prostitution and the unlawful practice of massage without a certificate of registration. Mills was sentenced to a fine of $500.00 and a term of 45 days in the county jail, and Gilbert, was sentenced to a fine of $200.00 and 20 days in the county jail. Both defendants received a stay of execution and filed motions for mitigation which were denied.

At a later time, it appeared that the bench dockets in the Mills and Gilbert cases had been changed. On Mills’ bench docket, he was sentenced to 45 days in jail, but thereafter the word “and” is crossed out and the word “or” inserted, “pay a fine of $500.00.” The bench docket in the Gilbert file provides for a jail term of 20 days and again, the word “and” is crossed out and the word “or” inserted, “pay a fine of $200.00.” On October 20, 1976, defense counsel paid his clients’ fines and was advised by the clerk of the court that the cases were closed.

On January 7, 1977, however, Judge Perry sent a letter to defense counsel ordering that the defendants be produced in court on January 12, 1977, for the purpose of having them begin serving the jail terms to which he sentenced them. Defense counsel filed a petition in the circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus or alternative remedies, and an evidentiary hearing was held. A deputy clerk of the county court testified that there was a discrepancy between the defendants’ commitment orders, judgment and sentence on the reverse side of the arrest forms and the bench dockets, and that he was unable to explain the discrepancy. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit judge found that the letter of January 7, 1977, could only be construed as a request to present the defendants before the court for the purpose of clarifying the sentence, and that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, providing for correcting sentences, expressly states that such correction must be made “. . . within sixty days after such imposition . . . ” A rule absolute in prohibition was issued on the ground that the last official action before Judge Perry being on October 22,1976, and the defendants not having been incarcerated within sixty days, therefore, pursuant to Rule 3.800, Judge Perry lost jurisdiction to correct or clarify the sentences. We disagree and reverse. Rule 3.800 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, entitled “Correction and Reduction of Sentences,” provides,

“(a) A court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it.

(b) A court may reduce a legal sentence imposed by it . . within sixty days after such imposition . . . ”

As the Rule, by its plain language, refers to correcting an illegal sentence, or reducing (mitigating) a legal sentence, we find that it has no application in this ease, wherein there was an alteration of sentences, which the trial judge denies having made. Judge Perry was neither correcting an illegal sentence nor reducing a legal sentence, but rather, he was attempting to execute the original and only sentence he rendered in the Mills and Gilbert cases. Generally, a court of record may, even after the term has expired, correct clerical mistakes in its own judgments and records. Boggs v, Wainwright, 223 So. 2d 316 (Fla.1969).

Therefore, we hold that Rule 3.800 was misapplied in this case, and that Judge Perry has full jurisdiction to execute the sentences he imposed. In light of the foregoing, the other point raised on appeal will not be discussed.

Reversed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Carson v. State, 489 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
    …We find, however, that rule 3.800 has no application to this ease, because the trial court was neither correcting an illegal sentence nor reducing a legal sentence, but was attempting to execute the original sentence it had ordered. Perry v. State, 357 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). A court may correct clerical mistakes in its own judgments and records, nunc pro tunc, even after the term of court has expired, and such corrections generally relate back and take effect as of the date of judgment. Boggs v. Wain…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw