ROBERT BRANDER, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida First District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari challenging a trial court's order that denied a Rule 3.800(c) motion to reduce or modify sentence based on lack of jurisdiction due to alleged untimeliness. The appellate court held that the motion was timely filed within 60 days after issuance of the appellate mandate, and remanded for the trial court to consider the motion on the merits.
A trial court's order denying a Rule 3.800(c) motion for lack of jurisdiction based on untimeliness is reviewable by certiorari. The petitioner's motion was timely filed because it was submitted within 60 days after receipt of the appellate court's mandate. Therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion on the merits.
[1] An order denying a motion to mitigate sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) for lack of jurisdiction based on untimeliness may be reviewed by c…
[2] A motion to mitigate sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) is timely if filed within 60 days after the court receives a mandate from an appellate cou…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a trial court's order denying a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) motion on the merits is not appeal-able, a trial court's order denying the motion for lack of jurisdiction based on the motion's untimeliness may be reviewed by this Court's certiorari jurisdiction”
Establishes the standard for when certiorari review is available for Rule 3.800(c) denials
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court sentenced the petitioner on February 7, 2007. The District Court of Appeal issued its mandate affirming the judgment and sentence on M…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Certiorari Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Although a trial court’s order denying a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) motion on the merits is not appeal-able, a trial court’s order denying the motion for lack of jurisdiction based on the motion’s untimeliness may be reviewed by this Court’s certiorari jurisdiction. See Davis v. State, 745 So. 2d 499, 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
As the State correctly concedes, the petitioner’s motion to mitigate sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(c) was timely filed. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) provides:
A court may reduce or modify to include any of the provisions of chapter 948, Florida Statutes, a legal sentence imposed by it within 60 days after the imposition, or within 60 days after receipt by the court of a mandate issued by the appellate court on affirmance of the judyment and/or sentence on an original appeal, or within 60 days after receipt by the court of a certified copy of an order of the appellate court dismissing an original appeal from the judgment and/or sentence, or, if further appellate review is sought in a higher court or in successively higher courts, within 60 days after the highest state or federal court to which a timely appeal has been taken under authority of law, or in which a petition for certiorari has been timely filed under authority of law, has entered an order of affirmance or an order dismissing the appeal and/or denying certiorari. This subdivision shall not be applicable to those cases in which the death sentence is imposed or those cases in which the trial judge has imposed the minimum mandatory sentence or has no sentencing discretion.
(emphasis added). Although the trial court sentenced the appellant on February 7, 2007, this Court issued its mandate on March 12, 2008. The petitioner filed his motion on April 8, 2008, 27 days after the mandate was issued. As such, the petitioner’s motion was filed within the 60-day time period prescribed by rule 3.800(c). Contrary to its order, the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the petitioner’s motion on the merits. The trial court’s failure to do so constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law. See Pruitt v. State, 932 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
Accordingly, the petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the trial court’s order denying the petitioner’s rule 3.800(c) motion for lack of jurisdiction is quashed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
WOLF, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 745 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Flowers v. McDONOUGH, 932 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)