JUANITA DOMINGUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Trial court correctly lacked jurisdiction to rule on a motion for reduction of sentence filed after the sixty-day period for action had expired, even though the motion was filed within sixty days of the appellate mandate.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 3.800(b) if more than sixty days have passed since the appellate court's mandate, regardless of when the motion was filed.
[1] Under Rule 3.800(b), Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Dominguez appealed an order denying her motion for reduction of sentence after her judgment and sentence were affirmed on appeal.…
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 Motion For Reduction Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
This appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion for reduction of sentence will be treated as a petition for writ of certiorari. Smith v. State, 471 So. 2d 1347, 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We hold that the trial. court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on this motion since more than sixty days had passed since receipt by the trial court of the appellate court’s mandate upon affirmance of appellant’s judgment and sentence. The fact that appellant filed the motion within the sixty day period is not the determinative fact since the rule requires that action be taken within sixty days. Rule 3.800(b), Fla. R.Crim.P.; State v. Lapica-Falcon, 519 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Grosse v. State, 511 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); and Wells v. State, 495 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Appellant’s reliance on dicta in Sanchez v. State, 541 So. 2d 1140 (Fla.1989), to the effect that Rule 3.800(b) requires that the motion be made within sixty days, is misplaced since Sanchez involved the question of whether a trial court has authority to remove an adjudication of guilt within the sixty day period. The Sanchez court did not address the issue in this ease, and the opinion does not indicate an intention to overrule the long line of decisions holding that the motion must be acted upon within the sixty day period.
Petition DENIED.
SHIVERS, C.J., and NIMMONS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Blue, 603 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…in which to reduce or modify Blue’s sentence. It lost jurisdiction to do so after sixty days had passed since imposition of the sentence. It is irrelevant that the motion to mitigate sentence was made within the sixty-day period. Dominguez v. State, 556 So. 2d 499 (Fla.lst DCA 1990); Grosse v. State, 511 So. 2d 688 (Fla.4th DCA 1987), review denied, 519 So. 2d 987 (Fla.1988). A petition for common-law writ of certiorari was the proper vehicle by which the State should have sought review of the trial court’s…
-
State v. Nichols, 629 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…hin 60 days of the original sentence is immaterial. Assuming, arguendo, the motion was timely filed, a timely order was not entered. Not only must the motion be filed timely, the court must act upon the motion within 60 days. See Dominguez v. State, 556 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The order vacating and setting aside the adjudication of guilt in case number 81-312-CF-B is quashed. Since the only reason the trial court gave for dismissing case number 92-717-CF-JL, possession of a firearm by a convicted fel…
-
Carter v. State, 608 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…da Rules of Criminal Procedure. An order denying a motion pursuant to this rule is nonappealable. Alexander v. State, 553 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). However, we elect to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, Dominguez v. State, 556 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), and deny it. Carter pled nolo contendere to several counts of robbery and the trial court imposed sentence on October 10, 1991. Rule 3.800(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, permits a trial court to reduce a legal sentenc…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 471 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Sanchez v. State, 541 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1989)
- Grosse v. State, 511 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Wells v. State, 495 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- State v. Lapica-Falcon, 519 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)