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).