Dixon v. State
Dixon appealed his conviction and sentence for armed burglary of a conveyance with a battery, challenging the trial court's post-appeal amendment of his sentence to add a statutorily required no-contact order. The Sixth DCA held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the State's Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion because that rule's scope during a pending appeal is limited to correcting errors that benefit the defendant or scrivener's errors, and adding a no-contact order that exposed Dixon to new felony liability exceeded that limited jurisdiction. The court affirmed the original judgment and sentence and remanded to vacate the amended sentence, without prejudice to the State seeking appropriate post-mandate relief.
Key facts
- Dixon was convicted and sentenced in trial court for armed burglary of a conveyance with a battery.
- While Dixon's appeal was pending, the trial court granted the State's Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to amend the sentence by adding a statutorily required no-contact order under section 921.244.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion clarifies the jurisdictional limits of Rule 3.800(b)(2) motions filed during a pending appeal, confirming (in line with the Second DCA's Jolly decision) that the State cannot use this vehicle to impose new… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.