Brown v. State
Summary of the case Brown v. State
Willie Brown appealed an order granting his Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. The trial court had corrected his sentence to designate him as a Prison Releasee Reoffender for Count I and removed his Habitual Violent Felony Offender designation. The Third District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction, as the order was not appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(1)(D).
Key Issues of the case Brown v. State
- Jurisdiction to appeal an order granting a motion to correct illegal sentence
- Designation as a Prison Releasee Reoffender
Key Facts of the case Brown v. State
- Brown filed a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence on June 19, 2017.
- The trial court granted the motion on June 21, 2017, correcting Brown's sentence.
Decision of the case Brown v. State
Dismissed
Opinions
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed September 6, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D17-1698 Lower Tribunal No. 99-41138A ________________
Willie Brown, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Richard Hersch, Judge.
Willie Brown, in proper person.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LAGOA, SCALES, and LUCK, JJ.
LAGOA, J. Appellant, Willie Brown (“Brown”), appeals from an order granting his
Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. We dismiss the appeal as this Court lacks
jurisdiction to entertain an appeal taken by defendant from an order granting relief
under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800.
On June 19, 2017, Brown filed a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence
pursuant rule 3.800(a)(1). On June 21, 2017, the trial court granted Brown’s
motion and corrected Brown’s sentence to reflect his designation as a Prison
Releasee Reoffender (P.R.R.) only as to Count I, and struck his Habitual Violent
Felony Offender (H.V.O.) designation in Count I. Brown filed a notice of appeal
regarding the trial court’s June 21, 2017, order.
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(1)(D) provides that:
(1) Appeals Permitted. A defendant may appeal
....
(D) orders entered after final judgment or finding of guilt, including orders revoking or modifying probation or community control, or both, or orders denying relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), 3.801, 3.850, 3.851, or 3.853.
(Emphasis added). Here, the trial court’s June 21, 2017, order granted Browm’s rule 3.800
motion. As such, the order is not an appealable order pursuant to rule
9.140(b)(1)(D), and we therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.1
2 Dismissed.
1 Our review of Brown’s Initial Brief shows that the brief did not address any of the issues raised in his motion to correct illegal sentence. Instead, Brown argued that the trial court erred in giving a non-standard jury instruction and erred in giving a modified Allen charge and then a full Allen charge. It therefore appears that Brown used the trial court’s June 21, 2017, order to reargue matters previously heard and considered by this Court in case number 3D16-1989. See Brown v. State, No. 3D16-1989 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 14, 2016). “While we recognize that incarcerated persons must be provided with the full panoply of procedural vehicles with which to challenge the lawfulness of their incarceration, the constitutional right of access to the courts is not unfettered. The right to proceed pro se will be forfeited where a party abuses the judicial process by the continued filing of ‘successive motions which have been heard, considered, rejected, and then raised again.’” Roberts v. State, No. 3D17-421, 2017 WL 3044671, at (Fla. 3d DCA July 19, 2017) (citations omitted).
We caution Brown that any further abuse of the judicial process may subject him to the issuance of an order to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se appeals, petitions, motions or other pleadings in this Court relating to lower tribunal case number F99-41138(A), as well as to the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Department of Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary action, including the forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2017); Minor v. State, 963 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
3