WILLIAM P. ROAUER, 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.
The trial court erred in denying a motion to mitigate sentence as untimely and in ruling it was appealable.
Appellant filed a motion to mitigate sentence. The trial court denied it as untimely and stated it was appealable.…
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 To Mitigate Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1304] PER CURIAM.
William P. Roauer appeals the denial of his motion to mitigate sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c).1 The trial court denied the motion as untimely and informed Mr. Roauer that he had thirty days to appeal its ruling to this court. The trial court erred in both rulings. A motion for reduction or modification of sentence is not appealable, although it can occasionally be reviewed under common law certiorari. See Moya v. State, 668 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Smith v. State, 471 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Mr. Roauer’s motion was not untimely because it was filed within sixty days of the issuance of mandate by this court in his direct appeal; See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(e).
Accordingly, we treat the appeal as a petition for certiorari and grant the petition. The trial court’s order is quashed, and the case is remanded for proper consideration of the motion to modify sentence.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur. . Mr. Roauer designated the motion as filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), which was the correct designation until January 1, 1997. It is clear from the substance of the motion that it seeks discretionary reduction of the sentence within the sixty-day period permitted by old rule 3.800(b), now rule 3.800(c).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 745 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…llate court may exercise its certiorari jurisdiction to review a case where the motion was denied for, among other reasons, lack of jurisdiction based on the motion’s untimeliness. Brown v. State, 707 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Roauer v. State, 697 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The record reveals Appellant timely filed a Motion to Enlarge Time, requesting an extension of time to March 25,1999, in which to file a Motion for Modification or Reduction of Sentence. The trial court entered an order grantin…
-
Lancaster v. State, 821 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…ce pursuant to rule 3.800(c) is not appealable, but it may be reviewed pursuant to this court’s certiorari jurisdiction when a trial court dismisses or denies the motion for lack of jurisdiction due to the motion’s untimeliness. See Roauer v. State, 697 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Moya v. State, 668 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Jolly v. State, 803 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). The trial court erred when it stated in its order that Lancaster’s direct appeal was pending. It further erred when it dismiss…
-
Jolly v. State, 803 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…appellate court may exercise its certiorari jurisdiction to review a case where the motion was denied for lack of jurisdiction based on the motion’s untimeliness. See Davis v. State, 745 So. 2d 499, 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see also Roauer v. State, 697 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The trial court denied the Petitioner’s motion on the mistaken belief that it no longer had jurisdiction to rule. Because the motion was filed within 60 days of the date that mandate issued in the Petitioner’s direct appeal, th…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Moya v. State, 668 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Smith v. State, 471 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)