pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit
Court for Pasco County; Kimberly Campbell, Judge.
Michael Chipman, pro se.
Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Linsey
Sims-Bohnenstiehl, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for
Michael Chipman appeals the trial courts order dismissing
his motion to withdraw plea after sentencing pursuant to
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l). He argues that
the court erred in dismissing his motion for lack of
jurisdiction because it was filed within thirty days of the
imposition of his new sentence and before he filed a notice
of appeal in Case No. 2D18-1067. We agree and reverse.
successfully challenged his sentence as being illegal because
one of his prior convictions did not constitute a qualifying
offense for purposes of a Violent Career Criminal (VCC)
designation. See § 775.084(1)(d), (e), Fla. Stat.
(2012). The trial court resentenced Chipman on February 16,
2018, and entered the written sentence on February 20, 2018.
Within thirty days of the imposition of the new sentence, on
February 26, 2018, Chipman filed a rule 3.170(l) motion
alleging that his plea was involuntarily entered. This motion
was filed before Chipman filed a notice of appeal of his
sentence on March 16, 2018, in Case No. 2D18-1067.
to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.020(i), an order is rendered when a signed,
written order is filed with the clerk of the lower court.
However, if a rule 3.170(l) motion has been filed, "the
final order shall not be deemed rendered as to any existing
party until the filing of a signed, written order disposing
of the" motion. Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(i)(1). Moreover,
if a rule 3.170(l) motion has been filed before a notice of
appeal, "the appeal shall be held in abeyance until the
filing of a signed, written order disposing of the"
motion. Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(i)(3).
because the rule 3.170(l) motion was timely filed, the motion
tolled rendition of Chipmans sentence. As such, Chipmans
appeal should have been held in abeyance until the court
disposed of his rule 3.170(l) motion. See
Carroll v. State, 157 So.3d 385, 385-86 (Fla. 2d DCA
2015) (holding trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the
defendants motion to withdraw plea even though the
defendants appeal was pending because the motion to withdraw
plea was filed before the notice of appeal); Balzer v.
State, 100 So.3d 173, 174-75 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
(dismissing appeal as premature and remanding to trial court
with directions to allow the defendant to proceed with his
rule 3.170(l) motion, which was filed before his notice of
No. 2D18-1067, Chipman filed a motion to hold the appeal of
his sentence in abeyance until the trial court ruled on his
rule 3.170(l) motion. On April 12, 2018, this court denied
that motion and concluded that the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to consider Chipmans rule 3.170(l) motion.
Relying on this courts order denying Chipmans motion to
hold the appeal of his sentence in abeyance, the trial court
entered an order dismissing Chipmans rule 3.170(l) motion
for lack of jurisdiction.
because rendition of the judgment and sentence had been
tolled as a matter of law, the trial court did have
jurisdiction over Chipmans rule 3.170(l) motion, which had
been timely filed after his resentencing. See
Passino v. State, 174 So.3d 1055, 1056-57 (Fla. 4th
("Because resentencing is a new proceeding, the
sentencing process starts afresh.... [R]esentencing
constitutes, for all intents and purposes, the rendition of
a new sentence." (quoting Fox v. State, 166
So.3d 894, 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015))). This court has vacated
its April 12, 2018, order denying the motion to hold the
appeal in abeyance and relinquished jurisdiction to the trial
court to rule on the merits of Chipmans rule 3.170(l)
motion. We now reverse the trial courts ...