Opinion
No. 2D22-916
08-19-2022
Patrick SULLIVAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Patrick Sullivan, pro se.
Patrick Sullivan, pro se.
Patrick Sullivan appeals the order denying his "motion to correct error." We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
In July 2004, a jury found Sullivan guilty of aggravated battery and armed carjacking. The State asserted at sentencing that Sullivan qualified as a prison releasee reoffender (PRR), and defense counsel agreed. However, sentencing was continued to September, at which time the trial court did not sentence Sullivan as a PRR. This fact was clarified at a hearing the following month on a defense motion for rehearing.
The trial court sentenced Sullivan to consecutive terms of fifteen years' imprisonment on the aggravated battery count and life imprisonment on the carjacking count.
On January 12, 2022, Sullivan filed a motion to correct error asserting that he was improperly denied his right to be present at what he called the resentencing hearing held in October 2004. He argued that if he had been present, he could have persuaded the trial court to exercise its discretion to impose a lighter sentence.
Sullivan filed his motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.180(a)(9), but that rule merely provides that a defendant's presence is required at the pronouncement of judgment and the imposition of sentence; it does not authorize relief by postconviction motion. See Brown v. State , 929 So. 2d 675, 677 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). As a result, the postconviction court should have stricken Sullivan's motion as unauthorized. See id. Instead, the postconviction court addressed what it characterized as the merits of the motion. But we do not have jurisdiction to review the postconviction court's order because it is "not a final judgment adjudicating guilt, final order withholding adjudication, order denying relief pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800, 3.850, 3.853, or any other type of appealable order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140." Id. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id. at 678.
Dismissed.
SILBERMAN and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.