Case Name: Zavon DeShawn TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2016-02-26
Citations: 185 So. 3d 1281
Docket Number: No. 1D14-3435
Parties: Zavon DeShawn TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: WETHERELL, RAY, and. KELSEY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 185
Pages: 1281–1282

Head Matter:
Zavon DeShawn TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D14-3435.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Feb. 26, 2016.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Wendy S. Loquasto, Special Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Matthew Pavese, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Zavon DeShawn Taylor appeals from his judgment and sentence for unarmed carjacking. Although the circuit court attempted to strike certain costs pursuant to Taylor's request in a motion under Florida Rule of Griminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), the circuit court did'so after its jurisdiction under that rule expired. Therefore, we must declare the corrected judgment and sentence a nullity and remand.for re-entry of that order. See Calidonio v. State, 951 So.2d 87, 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (explaining that an order entered after the expiration of the time for ruling on a motion under Rule 3.800(b)(2) is a nullity); Sessions v. State, 907 So.2d 572, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). We also reverse as to an error in the separate order of probation. The circuit court improperly imposed a condition requiring Taylor to "obtain" a GED or high school diploma. See Rodriguez v. State, 768 So.2d 1234, 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), overruled on other grounds as stated in Mier v. State, 58 So.3d 319, 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). We remand for the court to modify this condition to conform to the requirements of section 948.037(1), Florida Statutes (2012), which would require Taylor to make a "good faith effort" to achieve such.skills or diploma. We affirm as to Taylor's remaining , arguments. As the acts required by this opinion are ministerial in nature, Taylor need not be present for the court to undertake them.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
WETHERELL, RAY, and. KELSEY, JJ., concur.