Roger Smith, Jr. v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJune 3, 2020
Docket1D19-1908
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D19-1908
_____________________________
ROGER SMITH, JR.,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
Bruce Anderson, Jr., Judge.
June 3, 2020
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
B.L. THOMAS, J.
Appellant seeks resentencing, arguing that his life sentence
with a minimum mandatory of twenty-five years was illegal under
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). On appeal, Appellant
asserts that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to deny his motion
because it had already granted the motion when it appointed
counsel for resentencing.
Appellant’s reliance on Simmons v. State, 274 So. 3d 468 (Fla.
1st DCA 2019), does not entitle him to relief. This Court has
recently receded from Simmons and held that an order granting a
3.800(a) motion is not a final appealable order. See Rogers v. State,
45 Fla. L. Weekly D1069 (Fla. 1st DCA May 1, 2020) (holding that
the trial court has inherent authority to reconsider an order
granting relief under rule 3.800(a) because the order is not final or
appealable until resentencing has occurred). Thus, Simmons is no
longer good law. However, the instant case doesn’t turn on
Simmons or Rogers because the lower court never rendered a
written order granting resentencing. Appellant’s claim that the
trial court’s order appointing counsel for Appellant was
functionally equivalent to a final order granting resentencing is
without merit. The trial court’s order only appointed the public
defender to represent Appellant in the instant case. It did not
grant any relief or indicate that any relief would be granted. Thus,
no final order or a functional equivalent had been rendered.
Therefore, the trial court maintained jurisdiction to enter a final
order denying resentencing.
Because the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on Appellant’s
motion and Appellant is not entitled to resentencing, we AFFIRM.
Appellant’s motion for a written opinion is GRANTED, and we
withdraw our prior opinion. Appellant’s motions for rehearing en
banc and certification of question of great public importance are
DENIED.
WOLF and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Justin F. Karpf, Assistant
Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Tabitha R. Herrera,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
2