Patrick Sullivan v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledAugust 19, 2022
Docket2D22-0916
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
PATRICK SULLIVAN,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D22-916
August 19, 2022
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit
Court for Polk County; Larry Helms, Judge.
Patrick Sullivan, pro se.
CASANUEVA, Judge.
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.1 This fact was clarified at a hearing the following month
on a defense motion for rehearing.
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,
1 The trial court sentenced Sullivan to consecutive terms of
fifteen years' imprisonment on the aggravated battery count and life
imprisonment on the carjacking count.
2
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.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
3