MAURICE D. DANIELS, 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.
Maurice Daniels appealed a judgment, sentence, and order denying his motion for reduction of sentence, but filed his notice of appeal untimely. The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the motion for reduction of sentence was discretionary and that Daniels, having entered a guilty plea, had not alleged an illegal sentence or other grounds for appellate review.
The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. A motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 3.800(b) is discretionary and not reviewable on direct appeal. A defendant who enters a guilty plea is barred from obtaining appellate relief on direct appeal unless the sentence is illegal, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, or the state breached a plea agreement. Daniels offered inadequate grounds for a belated appeal.
[1] An appeal from an order denying a motion for reduction of sentence, made pursuant to Rule 3.800(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, is not reviewable by an appellate…
[2] A direct appeal from a judgment and sentence is barred when a defendant pleads guilty and makes no allegation that the sentence is illegal, the trial court lacked subject…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“This court therefore has no jurisdiction to review the correctness of the trial court's disposition of the motion.”
Establishes that Rule 3.800(b) motions for reduction of sentence are discretionary and not reviewable on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniels was sentenced on December 11, 1989, and an order denying his motion for reduction of sentence was entered on January 30, 1990. He filed his no…
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
PER CURIAM.
Maurice Daniels filed a notice of appeal on March 20, 1990, purporting to seek review of a judgment and sentence entered on December 11, 1989 and an order entered on January 30, 1990 which denied mitigation and reduction of sentence. The appellant was sua sponte directed to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as untimely taken. Daniels responded by filing a “motion for writ of habeas corpus,” saying that he is incarcerated and does not have access to legal materials except at the discretion of the institution officials. Further, he states that he is unskilled in the law and his failure to timely file the notice was due in part to being transferred four times since commitment to the Department of Corrections, thereby preventing him from having access to legal forms and materials.
Additionally, this court has received copies of documents from the circuit court relating to the motion for reduction of sentence. The motion indicates that Daniels pled guilty and sought relief based on the trial court’s failure to consider the circumstances of the crime, the defendant’s pledge not to commit another crime, the existence of grounds to excuse his conduct, and similar grounds. It does not allege the sentence was illegal. The motion was denied and the order recites that the sentence imposed was legal and based on a negotiated plea and sentence.
We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The motion for reduction of sentence appears to have been one made pursuant to Rule 3.800(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. This court therefore has no jurisdiction to review the correctness of the trial court’s disposition of the motion. See Johnson v. State, 543 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Further, it appears that the defendant pled guilty to the charges below and he makes no allegation that his sentence is illegal or that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction or that the state failed to abide by a plea agreement.
Accordingly, he is barred from obtaining relief from this court on direct appeal from his judgment and sentence. See section 924.06(3), Florida Statutes; Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1979).
Finally, the petitioner/appellant has not offered adequate grounds for the granting of a belated appeal, Jordan v. State, 549 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Based upon the foregoing, we find the appeal must be and is hereby DISMISSED.
JOANOS, WIGGINTON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Jordan v. State, 549 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Johnson v. State, 543 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)