In this Anders appeal, Luis Reyes challenged his judgments and sentences after pleading no contest to two counts of sexual battery, burglary with a battery, and home invasion robbery. The court affirmed all convictions and the original sentences of thirty years in prison followed by ten years of probation on each count to run concurrently. After Reyes filed his notice of appeal, the trial court granted a motion to reconsider and reduced the prison terms to twenty-five years with no probation, but the appellate court held these modifications void. The core reasoning was that the notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and appellate rules, preventing any ruling on the motion without relinquishment of jurisdiction by the appellate court. The original sentences therefore remain in effect, with the defendant free to file a timely postconviction motion after mandate issues.
In Gulledge v. Gulledge, the former husband appealed the final judgment dissolving his thirty-year marriage, specifically challenging the trial court's failure to set a deadline for refinancing or sale of the marital home (of which he was awarded half the equity), its denial of alimony despite his demonstrated need and the wife's higher income, and its failure to address or reserve jurisdiction over his request for attorney's fees. The court held that these omissions constituted errors requiring reversal and remand. It reasoned that precedent requires a reasonable deadline for sale or refinancing of the marital residence, that a long-term marriage creates a presumption favoring at least nominal permanent alimony when need is shown and the statutory factors are considered, and that a trial court must rule on or reserve jurisdiction for pleaded requests for attorney's fees.
In this case, Kenneth Ingraham appealed his sentence following a prior reversal and remand for resentencing by this court. The appellate court affirmed the corrected sentence but noted discrepancies between the trial court's oral pronouncement and the written sentence, specifically regarding prison credit and the amount of court costs. Because Ingraham had not preserved these issues by objecting or filing a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), the court affirmed the sentence without prejudice to his ability to seek correction via a rule 3.800(a) motion.
In King v. King, the former wife appealed the trial court's denial of her motion for contempt and enforcement of the 2007 marital settlement agreement incorporated in the divorce judgment, which required the former husband to make interest payments on an equitable distribution award until paid or the marital home sold. The trial court held it lacked jurisdiction after the home sale and limited the former wife to a separate civil contract action. The appellate court reversed, concluding the final judgment expressly reserved jurisdiction to enforce all provisions other than the dissolution itself and that the circuit court retained inherent authority to enforce the dissolution judgment in the same proceeding with the same case number. The matter was remanded for the trial court to consider the enforcement motion on its merits.
Joseph McClough challenged his sentence for robbery with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, arguing that it exceeded the twenty-year cap with a ten-year minimum mandatory that the State and trial court had agreed to in exchange for his guilty plea. He claimed his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the sentence or file a motion to withdraw the plea under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i). The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the sentencing error was not preserved for direct review and that ineffective assistance of counsel was not manifest on the face of the record because a tactical explanation for counsel's inaction was conceivable. The court noted that the affirmance was without prejudice to McClough filing a timely motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
The case involved Aaron Daniels, who was convicted of second-degree murder after shooting and killing a bystander during an altercation. Daniels appealed, claiming the trial court committed fundamental error by giving the 2008 version of the manslaughter by act jury instruction, which he argued required proof of intent to kill contrary to law. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the instruction as given did not require the jury to find an intent to kill the victim but only an intent to commit an act that caused death. The reasoning centered on the differences between the instruction in this case and the one found erroneous in State v. Montgomery, noting that the 2008 amendment included clarifying language that cured the defect.
