St. Fabre v. State
After resentencing on a community-control violation, the defendant filed a rule 3.800(a) motion during the appeal window; the trial court properly treated it as a rule 3.800(b)(1) motion and denied it one day after the defendant filed a notice of appeal of the sentences. The First DCA declined to quash the trial court's order, holding the court retained jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h), but dismissed the separate appeal because an order denying a 3.800(b)(1) motion may be reviewed only in the pending direct appeal.
Key facts
- Defendant was resentenced on a community-control violation and filed a motion under rule 3.800(a) during the appeal window, which the trial court treated as a rule 3.800(b)(1) motion.
- The trial court denied the rule 3.800(b)(1) motion one day after the defendant filed a notice of appeal of the sentences.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion clarifies the procedural trap created when a defendant files a postconviction motion during the notice-of-appeal window and distinguishes Madson's quashal rule for 3.800(a) motions from motions properly… — 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.