A 3.800(a) Motion for Illegal Sentence is considered an emergency motion by the courts. These motions are typically heard within 30 days, 90 days on the outside. The trial court judge for 16-CF-000371 in the 20th Circuit Court in Fort Myers (6th DCA is 6D2026-1799) has been sitting on Costello’s motion for well over a year. The motion was filed 6/30/2025.
Judge Andrew P Marcus ignored Costello’s motion. Here is the timeline
- 6/30/2025 Costello’s Motion for Illegal Sentence is considered submitted. The error is clear on the face of the record. There are no facts to argue over. The only direction to go is to approve the motion and issue an order
- 9/18/2025 After no action from the court, Costello submits a Notice of Inquiry to the clerk to find out WHY the motion is still sitting
- 1/2/2026 A Motion to Hear and Rule was submitted to the trial court/Judge Marcus. This motion continues to be ignored. A Motion of Supplemental Authority was also submitted at this time.
- 5/27/2026 A Motion to Set Action for Hearing was submitted. This action has also been completely ignored.
- 5/27/2026 A letter to Judge Marcus was submitted. This letter has been completely ignored.
- 7/1/2026 A Petition for Writ of Mandamus was submitted to the 6th District Court of Appeals. The clerk at the 6th DCA tried to time bar the complaint by ignoring the courtesy granted to Pro Se litigants, forcing him to correct his Certificate Service. As the court already provides copies to the trial court judge, SaO and AG, and notices were already sent to all three, the behavior comes across as disingenuous, to say the least.
- Judge Marcus FINALLY responds, after realizing that Costello will not be time barred with the Certificate of Service games with his Mandamus. In an effort to quash a clearly correct motion that should have already been granted, Judge Marcus appears to be intentionally mischaracterizing a Motion for Illegal Sentence with a challenge to the conviction. No challenge was made to the conviction in the 3.800(a). Any criminal court judge in Florida would KNOW that would be the incorrect vehicle for such a claim, and could clearly see that NO challenge to the conviction was made in the 3.800(a), particularly not in Ground 1. The challenge was strictly made against the sentence.