FL · rules

Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800

Correction, Reduction, and Modification of Sentences

activein force · 2026-07-13 – presentact-effective-date

(a) Correction.

(1) Generally. A court may at any time correct an illegal

sentence imposed by it, or an incorrect calculation made by it in a

sentencing scoresheet, when it is affirmatively alleged that the court

records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to that relief,

provided that a party may not file a motion to correct an illegal

sentence under this subdivision during the time allowed for the

filing of a motion under subdivision (b)(1) or during the pendency of

a direct appeal.

(2) Successive Motions. A court may dismiss a second

or successive motion if the court finds that the motion fails to allege

new or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was

on the merits. When a motion is dismissed under this subdivision,

a copy of that portion of the files and records necessary to support

the court’s ruling must accompany the order dismissing the motion.

(3) Sexual Predator Designation. A defendant may seek

correction of an allegedly erroneous sexual predator designation

under this subdivision, but only when it is apparent from the face

of the record that the defendant did not meet the criteria for

designation as a sexual predator.

(4) Appeals. All orders denying or dismissing motions

under subdivision (a) must include a statement that the defendant

has the right to appeal within 30 days of rendition of the order.

(b) Motion to Correct Sentencing Error. A motion to

correct any sentencing error, including an illegal sentence or

incorrect jail credit, may be filed as allowed by this subdivision.

This subdivision shall not be applicable to those cases in which the

death sentence has been imposed and direct appeal jurisdiction is

in the supreme court under article V, section 3(b)(1) of the Florida

Constitution. The motion must identify the error with specificity

and provide a proposed correction. A response to the motion may be

filed within 15 days, either admitting or contesting the alleged error.

Motions may be filed by the state under this subdivision only if the

correction of the sentencing error would benefit the defendant or to

correct a scrivener’s error.

(1) Motion Before Appeal. During the time allowed for

the filing of a notice of appeal of a sentence, a defendant or the

state may file a motion to correct a sentencing error.

(A) This motion shall stay rendition under Florida

Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h).

(B) Unless the trial court determines that the

motion can be resolved as a matter of law without a hearing, it shall

hold a calendar call no later than 20 days from the filing of the

motion, with notice to all parties, for the express purpose of either

ruling on the motion or determining the need for an evidentiary

hearing. If an evidentiary hearing is needed, it shall be set no more

than 20 days from the date of the calendar call. Within 60 days

from the filing of the motion, the trial court shall file an order ruling

on the motion. A party may file a motion for rehearing of any

signed, written order entered under subdivisions (a) and (b) of this

rule within 15 days of the date of service of the order or within 15

days of the expiration of the time period for filing an order if no

order is filed. A response may be filed within 10 days of service of

the motion. The trial court’s order disposing of the motion for

rehearing shall be filed within 15 days of the response but not later

than 40 days from the date of the order of which rehearing is

sought. A timely filed motion for rehearing shall toll rendition of the

order subject to appellate review and the order shall be deemed

rendered upon the filing of a signed, written order denying the

motion for rehearing.

(2) Motion Pending Appeal. If an appeal is pending, a

defendant or the state may file in the trial court a motion to correct

a sentencing error. The motion may be filed by appellate counsel

and must be served before the party’s first brief is served. A notice

of pending motion to correct sentencing error shall be filed in the

appellate court, which notice automatically shall extend the time for

the filing of the brief until 10 days after the clerk of circuit court

transmits the supplemental record under Florida Rule of Appellate

Procedure 9.140(f)(6).

(A) The motion shall be served on the trial court

and on all trial and appellate counsel of record. Unless the motion

expressly states that appellate counsel will represent the movant in

the trial court, trial counsel will represent the movant on the motion

under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(d). If the state is

the movant, trial counsel will represent the defendant unless

appellate counsel for the defendant notifies trial counsel and the

trial court that he or she will represent the defendant on the state’s

motion.

(B) The trial court shall resolve this motion in

accordance with the procedures in subdivision (b)(1)(B), except that

if the trial court does not file an order ruling on the motion within

60 days, the motion shall be deemed denied. Similarly, if the trial

court does not file an order ruling on a timely motion for rehearing

within 40 days from the date of the order of which rehearing is

sought, the motion for rehearing shall be deemed denied.

Procedure 9.140(f)(6), the clerk of circuit court shall supplement the

appellate record with the motion, the order, any amended sentence,

and, if designated, a transcript of any additional portion of the

proceedings.

modify to include any of the provisions of chapter 948, Florida

Statutes, a legal sentence imposed by it, sua sponte, or upon

motion filed, within 60 days after the imposition, or within 60 days

after receipt by the court of a mandate issued by the appellate court

on affirmance of the judgment and/or sentence on an original

appeal, or within 60 days after receipt by the court of a certified

copy of an order of the appellate court dismissing an original appeal

from the judgment and/or sentence, or, if further appellate review

is sought in a higher court or in successively higher courts, within

60 days after the highest state or federal court to which a timely

appeal has been taken under authority of law, or in which a petition

for certiorari has been timely filed under authority of law, has

entered an order of affirmance or an order dismissing the appeal

and/or denying certiorari. If review is upon motion, the trial court

shall have 90 days from the date the motion is filed or such time as

agreed by the parties or as extended by the trial court to enter an

order ruling on the motion. This subdivision shall not be applicable

to those cases in which the death sentence is imposed or those

cases in which the trial judge has imposed the minimum mandatory

sentence or has no sentencing discretion.

History

Committee Notes 1968 Adoption. Same as sections 921.24 and 921.25, Florida Statutes. Similar to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. 1972 Amendment. Same as prior rule. 1977 Amendment. This amendment provides a uniform time within which a defendant may seek a reduction in sentence and excludes death and minimum mandatory sentences from its operation. 1980 Amendment. Permits the sentencing judge, within the 60–day time period, to modify as well as to reduce the sentence originally imposed. Such modification would permit the judge to impose, in the modification, any sentence which could have been imposed initially, including split sentence or probation. The trial judge may not, in such modification, increase the original sentence. 1996 Amendments. Subdivision (b) was added and existing subdivision (b) was renumbered as subdivision (c) in order to authorize the filing of a motion to correct a sentence or order of probation, thereby providing a vehicle to correct sentencing errors in the trial court and to preserve the issue should the motion be denied. A motion filed under subdivision (b) is an authorized motion which tolls the time for filing the notice of appeal. The presence of a defendant who is represented by counsel would not be required at the hearing on the disposition of such a motion if it only involved a question of law. 2000 Amendment. The amendment to subdivision (a) is intended to conform the rule with State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998). Court Commentary 1999 Amendments. Rule 3.800(b) was substantially rewritten to accomplish the goals of the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996 (Ch. 96-248, Laws of Fla.). As revised, this rule permits the filing of a motion during the initial stages of an appeal. A motion pursuant to this rule is needed only if the sentencing error has not been adequately preserved for review at an earlier time in the trial court. The State may file a motion to correct a sentencing error pursuant to rule 3.800(b) only if the correction of that error will benefit the defendant or correct a scrivener’s error. This amendment is not intended to alter the substantive law of the State concerning whether a change to the defendant’s sentence violates the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. See, e.g., Cheshire v. State, 568 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1990); Goene v. State, 577 So. 2d 1306, 1309 (Fla. 1991); Troupe v. Rowe, 283 So. 2d 857, 859 (Fla. 1973). A scrivener’s error in this context describes clerical or ministerial errors in a criminal case that occur in the written sentence, judgment, or order of probation or restitution. The term scrivener’s error refers to a mistake in the written sentence that is at variance with the oral pronouncement of sentence or the record but not those errors that are the result of a judicial determination or error. See, e.g., Allen v. State, 739 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (correcting a “scrivener’s error” in the written order that adjudicated the appellant in contempt for “jailing polygraph exam”); Pressley v. State, 726 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (correcting scrivener’s error in the sentencing documents that identified the defendant as a habitual offender when he was not sentenced as a habitual offender); Ricks v. State, 725 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (correcting scrivener’s error that resulted from the written sentence not identifying the defendant as a habitual offender although the court had orally pronounced a habitual offender sentence), review denied, 732 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1999); McKee v. State, 712 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (remanding for the trial court to determine whether a scrivener’s error occurred where the written order of probation imposed six years’ probation, which conflicted with the written sentence and the trial court minutes that reflected only five years’ probation had been imposed); Florczak v. State, 712 So. 2d 467, 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (correcting a scrivener’s error in the judgment of conviction where the defendant was acquitted of grand theft but the written judgment stated otherwise); Stombaugh v. State, 704 So. 2d 723, 725-26 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (finding a scrivener’s error occurred where the State had nol prossed a count of the information as part of plea bargain but the written sentence reflected that the defendant was sentenced under that count). But see Carridine v. State, 721 So. 2d 818, 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (trial court’s failure to sign written reasons for imposing an upward departure sentence did not constitute a scrivener’s error that could be corrected nunc pro tunc by the trial court), and cases cited therein. When a trial court determines that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve a factual issue, it is possible that the court will need to utilize the entire 60–day period authorized by this rule. However, trial courts and counsel are strongly encouraged to cooperate to resolve these motions as expeditiously as possible because they delay the appellate process. For purposes of this rule, sentencing errors include harmful errors in orders entered as a result of the sentencing process. This includes errors in orders of probation, orders of community control, cost and restitution orders, as well as errors within the sentence itself. 2015 Amendments. The amendment to rule 3.800(a)(2) is not intended to render inapplicable the “manifest injustice” exception as described in State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003).

Provenance

Source: floridabar.org
Retrieved: 2026-09-14
Edition: 2026-09-14
Content hash: d89087084e58234f411ce68b2e4cd0b4204d6b5dab0e31f9313ec186105220c5

View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs