STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID BACA, 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 lacked jurisdiction to reconsider a denied motion to reduce a sentence when the motion for reconsideration was filed outside the time limits prescribed by rule.
Baca's appeal was dismissed, his subsequent motion to reduce sentence was denied, and a motion to reconsider that denial was filed over 100 days later…
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.
The State appeals the trial court’s order reducing Baca’s sentence. The motion to reconsider the sentence was filed 103 days following the dismissal of Baca’s appeal. We treat the State’s appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, grant the writ, and quash the order of mitigation.
The State correctly argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to recon sider the denial of Baca’s motion to reduce his sentence. On July 19, 1996, this court issued an order of dismissal of Baca’s appeal. Thereafter, on August 19, 1996, Baca filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). The trial court denied the motion to reduce. Then on October 30, 1996, Baca filed a motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to reduce. Following a hearing on that motion, the trial court reduced Baca’s sentence.
The denial of a motion to reduce a legal sentence is generally not appealable. See Lee v. State, 662 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The motion for reconsideration was filed over thirty days after the denial of the motion and outside of the sixty-day limit provided in rule 3.800(c). Accordingly, the trial court did not have jurisdiction on October 30,1996, to reduce Baca’s sentence. See State v. Rhodes, 554 So. 2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
In Rhodes, this court held that “the proper vehicle to request review on such grounds” is by writ of certiorari. Id. at 1230. Accordingly, we grant the writ, quash the order of mitigation, and remand with instructions that the trial court reinstate the original sentence.
PARKER, C.J., and PATTERSON and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Swett, 772 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…ssuance of the appellate mandate following Swett’s unsuccessful appeal. As to appellate review, the denial of a motion to reduce a legal sentence is generally not reviewable since the trial court’s ruling is purely discretionary. See State v. Baca, 707 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Royal v. State, 736 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).3 We deal here, however, [*51] with the granting of a motion to mitigate. While there is no express reference in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1), which deals with…
-
State v. Jordan, 783 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…ssed. He claims that a writ of certiorari is categorically unavailable to review a final order where no right of appeal has been provided by statute. In turn, the state relying on State v. Swett, 772 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), and State v. Baca, 707 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), claims that it must be able to seek appellate review to insure its ability to enforce plea and/or substantial assistance agreements. In Swett, the state reduced an original charge of first degree murder to second degree murder i…
-
State v. Garcia (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…see also Kiriazes v. State, 798 So. 2d 789, 794 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“More than sixty days had passed since the original sentence was imposed and thus, under rule 3.800(c), the trial court had no jurisdiction to correct the error.”); State v. Baca, 707 So. 2d 766, 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“The motion for reconsideration was filed over thirty days after the denial of the motion and outside of the sixty-day limit provided in rule 3.800(c). Accordingly, the trial court did not have jurisdiction on October 30, 1…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Rhodes, 554 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Anton Levon LEE v. State, 662 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Forney v. State, 662 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)