Court Opinion

ID: 9903851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 16:07:06.092805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:20.474328
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                      FIFTH DISTRICT

                                    NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                                    FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                                    DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

STATE OF FLORIDA,

            Appellant,                  Case No. 5D21-1834
                                        LT Case No. 48-2006-CF-012768-O
v.

TIMOTHY DONALD JANES,

            Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed November 21, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Orange County,
Mark S. Blechman, Judge.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Richard Alexander
Pallas, Jr., Assistant Attorney
General, Daytona Beach, for
Appellant.

William R. Ponall, of Ponall Law,
Maitland, for Appellee.

EDWARDS, J.
      As part of a de novo resentencing to correct previously imposed illegal

sentences on certain counts, may the postconviction court restructure legal

sentences on other counts? Appellant, the State, argues that the answer is

no, and we agree. The authority to resentence de novo, once the sixty-day

time frame set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) has

expired, applies only to those counts on which illegal sentences were

previously imposed and does not extend to permit the postconviction court

to alter any legal sentence on any other count.

                                 Background

      Following a jury trial, Appellee, Timothy Donald Janes, was found guilty

of ten counts of child sex crimes. In 2007, the trial judge made an oral

pronouncement of sentences totaling sixty years in prison, and Appellee was

also designated as a sexual predator. His initial plenary appeal was affirmed.

Janes v. State, 985 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

      In 2018, Appellee, through counsel, filed a rule 3.800(a) motion in

which he challenged the legality of the sentences imposed on Counts 6, 10,

and 11 as exceeding the applicable statutory maximum lengths. Additionally,

Appellee argued that the eighty-year written sentence inappropriately

differed from the sixty-year sentence orally pronounced originally by the trial

court. Further, Appellee asserted in his rule 3.800(a) motion that his

                                      2
sentence on Count 7 was illegal because the trial court had failed to orally

pronounce any sentence as to that count. Although Appellee raised other

arguments, he did not challenge the legality of the length or nature of the

prison sentences imposed on Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9, each of which were

concurrent with each other and consecutive to Count 6. Nor did the State at

any point concede to any illegal sentencing as to those just-listed counts.

      In 2019, the first postconviction court granted Appellee’s motion in part

“to the extent that [Appellee] will be resentenced to clarify the discrepancy

between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence, and the sentence

length of counts 6 and 11.” All other claims were denied in the written order. 1

      Resentencing did not actually occur until 2021 before a second

postconviction judge.    Commendably, the State conceded that Appellee

should be resentenced so that the oral pronouncement controlled and no

sentences exceeded statutory maximums. Additionally, despite the 2019

resentencing order not directing relief as to Counts 8 and 10, the State

conceded that Appellee should also be resentenced on those counts as they

exceeded the relevant statutory maximums and were thus illegal sentences.

In summary, the State agreed that Appellee was entitled to resentencing

      1
        Appellee’s other postconviction claims of sentencing score sheet
errors, double jeopardy issues, etc., have not been challenged by means of
cross-appeal.

                                       3
specifically on Counts 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 along with revising the written total

sentence of eighty-years’ imprisonment to conform with the sixty-year oral

pronouncement.

      In the 2021 resentencing hearing, at Appellee’s request and over the

State’s objection, the postconviction court resentenced Appellee in a truly de

novo fashion in which it restructured both illegally and legally imposed

sentences. As to Counts 2, 3, and 9, the postconviction court changed the

originally imposed legal sentences of fifteen-years’ imprisonment to fifteen

years of sex offender probation.           Likewise, the postconviction court

restructured the legally imposed sentences on Counts 4 and 5 of five years’

imprisonment to an unspecified term of sex offender probation.

      The terms of imprisonment originally imposed on Counts 3, 4, 5, and 9

were originally ordered to be served concurrently with Count 2 and each

other but consecutively to the sentence for Count 6. The originally imposed

prison sentences for those counts did not cause the total sentence to exceed

the oral pronouncement of sixty years when combined with the new

sentences properly imposed by the postconviction court on Counts 6, 7, 8,

10, and 11. The postconviction court did not declare the original sentences

in Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9 to be illegal in any fashion, nor did it indicate any

                                       4
legal reason for changing the nature of the terms from imprisonment to

probation. 2

                                       Analysis

      The legality of a criminal sentence is reviewed de novo. Abraham v.

State, 339 So. 3d 370, 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (citing Cruz v. State, 189 So.

3d 822, 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)).

      The State agrees that the postconviction court could resentence in a

truly de novo fashion so as to restructure any illegal sentence that had

previously been imposed on any count, within the parameters provided by

law. On the other hand, the State argues that the postconviction court

committed reversible error because it lacked authority to restructure any of

the legal sentences originally imposed on Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9. We agree.

      While an illegal sentence can be corrected at any time, a court loses

jurisdiction to modify a legal sentence after sixty days have passed since its

      2
       Although not relevant to our disposition of this case, we note that the
issue raised by the parties here, of whether an order granting resentencing
under rule 3.800, such as the 2019 order granting resentencing in part in this
case, is a final, appealable order or subject to reconsideration prior to
imposing the corrected sentence, has recently been addressed in Morgan v.
State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly S273 (Fla. Nov. 3, 2022). The Florida Supreme
Court held that it is not a final order and noted its disapproval of this Court’s
decision in Magill v. State, 287 So. 3d 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), and its
progeny. Morgan, 47 Fla. L. Weekly at S273.

                                       5
imposition. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a), (c); Jackson v. State, 825 So. 2d 1021,

1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Moreover, a rule 3.800(a) motion does not provide

a court with jurisdiction to modify a legal sentence imposed on a count, even

if the sentence for another count was found to be illegal. See Pitts v. State,

935 So. 2d 634, 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“A motion to correct an illegal

sentence does not authorize the trial court to modify a legal sentence

imposed on another count.”); see also Gordon v. State, 635 So. 2d 1017,

1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (holding where some counts were affirmed on

appeal and others were vacated, the trial court only had authority to modify

the vacated sentences and not the legal sentences on the affirmed counts);

Seago v. State, 627 So. 2d 1316, 1316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (“[A] trial court,

when correcting an illegal sentence on one count of an information, does

not have the authority to modify legal sentences that have been rendered on

the other counts.”).   When a court is without jurisdiction to impose a

sentence, the imposed sentence is illegal. Laster v. State, 805 So. 2d 909,

910 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

                                Conclusion

     The postconviction court lacked authority to restructure the original,

legal sentences imposed on Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9. Accordingly, we

                                      6
reverse and remand for the postconviction court to reinstate the original

sentences for those counts in all respects.

     REVERSED and REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

WALLIS and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.

                                     7