Blake v. StateBlake v. State
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Sherri T. Rollison, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
POLSTON, J.
Appellant Thomas Brant Blake was charged by information with leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death, in violation of
After Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal but before the initial brief was filed in this Court, he filed a motion pursuаnt to
The State argues that this subsequent order modifying the sentence moots Appellant‘s appeal. We disagree, and rule that the “motion to correct sentencing error was deemed denied, and the trial court‘s jurisdiction came to an end, once sixty days passed with no action on the motion.” Hart v. State, 773 So. 2d 1263, 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (applying the 60-day limitation to a 3.800(b)(2) motion). The trial court‘s subsequent order modifying the sentence is a nullity. See Kimbrough v. State, 766 So. 2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (holding thаt “the Rule 3.800(b) motion, which was not decided within 60 days of filing, is deemed denied and any order rendered more than 60 days from the filing of the motion is a nullity.“).
II.
Although the Department of Highway Sаfety and Motor Vehicles has the authority to revoke Appellant‘s driver‘s licеnse, the trial court lacks authority to suspend his license. See e.g., Ferris v. State, 558 So. 2d 179, 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that trial court laсked jurisdiction to suspend defendant‘s driver‘s license);
III.
Appellant argues, citing Bodden v. State, 411 So. 2d 1391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), that the trial court‘s speсial condition of probation requiring him to view an autopsy
However, Appellant also argues that this requirement is an intrusion into the privacy interests of the family of the person whose autopsy he observes. Without addressing whether Appellant has standing to raise this argument, we recognize that the family has legal interests in the decedent‘s body, and therefore instruct the trial court to consider these interests upon resentencing. See Crocker v. Pleasant, 778 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 2001) (holding that Florida recognizes а claim of entitlement by the next of kin to possession of the remains of a decedent, therefore the next of kin may bring a § 1983 claim arising from alleged deprivation of procedural due process);
REVERSED and REMANDED for resentencing.
WEBSTER and LEWIS, JJ., concur.