STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
HAROLD BLUE, 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.
The State appeals a trial court's order reducing Harold Blue's sentence, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to modify the sentence more than 60 days after imposition. The appellate court agrees and quashes the reduction order.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to reduce the sentence because Rule 3.800(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, limits a court's authority to modify a sentence to within 60 days of imposition, and this deadline cannot be extended merely by filing a motion within the 60-day period if the order is entered after that period expires.
[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction to reduce or modify a legal sentence after sixty days from the imposition of the sentence, absent an appellate mandate or dismissal.
[2] The filing of a motion to mitigate sentence within the sixty-day period does not extend the trial court's jurisdiction to act on that motion beyond the sixty-day limit.
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“A court may reduce or modify to include any of the provisions of chapter 948, Florida Statutes, a legal sentence imposed by it within sixty days after such imposition, or within sixty days after receipt by the court of a mandate issued by the appellate court upon affirmance of the judgment and/or sentence upon an original appeal...”
Establishes the temporal limitation on a trial court's jurisdiction to modify sentences under Florida Rule 3.800(b)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarold Blue pleaded no contest to uttering forgeries, dealing in stolen property, and grand theft in exchange for a guidelines sentence not to exceed …
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 Jurisdiction To Modify Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
The State appeals an order reducing Harold Blue’s sentence upon his motion to mitigate sentence.
In exchange for a guidelines sentence not to exceed the recommended range of nine to twelve years, Blue entered pleas of no contest to several counts of uttering forgeries, dealing in stolen property, and grand theft. The pleas were accepted; judgment was entered; and on March 29, 1991, Blue was sentenced within the permitted range to eight years’ incarceration followed by four years’ probation.
On May 23, 1991, Blue filed his motion to mitigate sentence, and on September 4, 1991, the trial court entered an order reducing the period of incarceration by one year. The state appeals this reduction, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the order mitigating sentence was entered more than sixty days after sentence was imposed. We agree.
Rule 3.800(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 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 sixty days after such imposition, or within sixty days after receipt by the court of a mandate issued by the appellate court upon af-firmance of the judgment and/or sentence upon an original appeal, or within sixty 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....
Since there was no appeal, the trial court had sixty days following imposition of sentence within 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 reduction of sentence, an action in excess of its jurisdiction. Hudson v. Hofmann, 471 So. 2d 117 (Fla.2d DCA 1985), review denied, 480 So. 2d 1294 (Fla.1985). We treat the State’s appeal as a petition for the writ, grant the petition, and quash the order reducing Blue’s sentence.
PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.
W. SHARP and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Woodard, 866 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…nce. See Hussey v. State, 739 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). This is so even where, as in this case, the “motion sat in the court file while the time period expired.” Grosse v. State, 511 So. 2d 688, 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); see also State v. Blue, 603 So. 2d 648, 649 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)(“It is irrelevant that the motion to mitigate sentence was made within the sixty-day period.”). It is the sole responsibility of the movant to see that the motion is scheduled for a hearing within the window period. Just as…
-
State v. Williams, 780 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…n such a motion while a direct appeal is pending. E.g., Nelson v. State, 724 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Smith v. State, 407 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We treat the state’s appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari. E.g., State v. Blue, 603 So. 2d 648, 649 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (a petition for a writ of certiorari is the proper method by which to challenge as beyond its jurisdiction a trial court’s order reducing a sentence); Hudson v. Hofmann, 471 So. 2d 117, 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (common law cer…
-
State v. Jordan, 783 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…of certiorari, quashed the order finding that the trial court did not have the jurisdiction to reduce the defendant’s sentence. Subject matter jurisdiction is clearly an issue that the state may raise by a petition for certiorari; see State v. Blue, 603 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); State v. Rhodes, 554 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); and thus Baca bears little relation to the matter before us. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal by way of certiorari review. The case law of this…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hudson v. Hofmann, 471 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Grosse v. State, 511 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Dominguez v. State, 556 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)