Jeffrey Bartlett Harrington v. State of Florida

FIFTH DISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL
S TATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2024-2191
LT Case No. 2021-CF-1698-A
_____________________________
JEFFREY B ARTLETT
H ARRINGTON ,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF F LORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County.
R. Lee Smith, Judge.
Michael C. Nappi, Chief Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the
Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, 5th District,
Casselberry, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Roberts J.
Bradford, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for
Appellee.
December 19, 2025
EDWARDS, J.

2
Counsel for Appellant, Jeffrey Bartlett Harrington, filed an
Anders1 brief regarding Appellant’s judgment and sentence. After
careful review, we affirm in all respects, except that we are
compelled to reverse in part and remand to address a technical,
jurisdictional matter.
Prior to Appellant being sentenced below, the State filed an
amended information which included eleven counts rather than
the 	twelve 	counts 	contained 	in 	the 	original 	information.
Appellant’s plea was accepted by the trial court, and he was
sentenced as agreed, with one exception—by mistake, a sentence
of time served was imposed on Count 12, which was the count that
had 	been 	eliminated 	in 	the 	amended 	information. 	Although
Appellant did not reserve the right to appeal any issues, he
nevertheless timely commenced this appeal on August 8, 2024.
As part of this Court’s Anders review, the Count 12 sentencing
mistake was noted, and Appellant’s counsel was ordered to show
cause why a motion to correct that sentencing error should not be
filed. In April 2025, in response to this Court’s order and pursuant
to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), Appellant’s counsel
moved for entry of an amended judgment and sentence that would
not contain any mention of, or sentence for, Count 12, as it had
been eliminated in the amended information. 	The State’s initial
response agreed with Appellant’s motion and the relief sought.
However, the State subsequently amended its response to advise
the trial court that a Second Corrected Judgment and Sentence,
entered December 5, 2024, had already removed the sentence for
Count 12.2 	The trial court then denied Appellant’s Rule 3.800(b)
motion as moot because it considered that the sentencing error had
been corrected in the Second Corrected Judgment and Sentence.
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2 The record on appeal provided to this Court did not contain
the December 5, 2024 Second Corrected Judgment and Sentence,
nor was it disclosed to this Court in response to the order to show
cause.

3
Although that December 5, 2024 Second Corrected Judgment
and Sentence was an attempt to correct the Count 12 sentencing
error, it was entered after Appellant had commenced his appeal
and was not entered in connection with a Rule 3.800(b) motion.3
“While we appreciate the trial court's diligence, it nevertheless
lacked 	jurisdiction 	to 	enter 	its 	order 	correcting 	sentencing
documents while Appellant's direct appeal was pending.” Acevedo
v. State, 	279 	So. 3d 	1273, 1274 	(Fla. 5th 	DCA 	2019) (citing
Whitfield v. State, 178 So. 3d 972, 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)). Thus,
in our case, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the Second
Corrected Judgment and Sentence, which we now vacate.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) and Florida
Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(e) permit and set forth the
specific procedures to be followed in correcting a sentencing error
while a case is on appeal. 	Thus, Appellant’s April 2025 Rule
3.800(b) motion was the proper vehicle to have been employed to
correct the acknowledged Count 12 sentencing error, which all
agreed 	needed 	to 	be 	done. 	Because 	the 	Second 	Corrected
Judgment 	and 	Sentence 	was 	entered 	without 	jurisdiction,
Appellant’s April 2025 motion was not moot. 	Therefore, it was
error for the trial court to have denied the motion.
Accordingly, 	we: 	(1) 	affirm 	the 	judgment 	and 	sentence
previously entered with the exception of the sentence on Count 12;
(2) vacate the December 5, 2024 Second Corrected Judgment and
Sentence; (3) reverse denial of the Rule 3.800(b) motion; and (4)
remand with instructions for the trial court to grant Appellant’s
Rule 3.800(b) motion and enter an amended or corrected judgment
and sentence that deletes the imposition of any sentence for, and
any mention of, Count 12. 	Appellant does not need to be present
for this ministerial resentencing.4
3 There is no indication in the record as to the catalyst for the
trial court’s entry of the Second Corrected Judgment and Sentence.
4 Valentin v. State, 963 So. 2d 317, 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

4
A FFIRMED, in part; R EVERSED, in part and R EMANDED, with
instructions.
S OUD and K ILBANE, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not 	final 	until 	disposition 	of 	any 	timely 	and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________