DAVID B. KNAFEL, 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.
Court denied certiorari review of trial court's denial of sentence mitigation motion because the motion was untimely filed and no manifest injustice was demonstrated.
A trial court's denial of an untimely motion to mitigate sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) is not appealable and certiorari review is denied absent manifest injustice.
[1] A motion to mitigate sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) must be filed within the time prescribed by rule, and an untimely motion is not subject to…
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 intelligenceDavid Knafel filed a motion to mitigate his sentence six months after it was imposed, without having appealed the original sentence. A judge other tha…
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
PER CURIAM.
David Knafel appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to mitigate his sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). This order is not appealable, and this appeal would customarily be subject to dismissal. See Lee v. State, 662 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
The trial court’s authority to deny a modification or mitigation of a sentence is entirely discretionary. In his notice of appeal, however, Knafel raises a legal issue for which review might he; to-wit, whether a judge other than the one who imposed sentence should properly have ruled upon such a motion, as was the case in the trial court. This court may exercise its certiorari jurisdiction to review unsuccessful motions to mitigate if they question matters not wholly within the trial court’s discretion. See Brown v. State, 707 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
We note that Knafel’s motion was filed six months after the sentence was imposed of which he complains, and, as no appeal was taken from that sentence, his motion was untimely filed in the trial court. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(c).
Accordingly, we treat Knafel’s attempt to appeal the denial of the motion as a petition for writ of certiorari, and, because no manifest injustice has been demonstrated, deny the petition.
BLUE, A.C.J., and GREEN and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Roan Peart v. State, 756 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2000)…r vehicle by which noncustodial defendants may have alleged rule 3.172(c)(8) violations. The writ of error coram nobis is an established method of collaterally attacking a judgment based on a rule 3.172(c)(8) violation. See, e,g, Gregersen v. State, 714 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA), review granted, 728 So. 2d 205 (Fla. [*46] 1998); Beckles v. State, 679 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Dugart v. State, 578 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Federal courts have likewise accepted writs of error co-ram nobis as vehicles…1 / 3
-
State v. Perry, 786 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2001)…icle for obtaining the requested relief. Perry, at 585. However, the court recognized a conflict among the districts as to whether an attack on the voluntariness of a plea could be addressed by a coram nobis petition. Id. Compare Gregersen v. State, 714 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that a coram nobis petition was available to challenge whether a plea was voluntary), approved, 758 So. 2d 106 (Fla.2000), with Peart v. State, 705 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (reaching the opposite conclusion — that…1 / 2
-
State v. Swett, 772 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…on to modify the sentence. . Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). . A circuit court order on mitigation of sentence which determines an issue not wholly within the court’s discretion may be reviewed by way of certiorari. See Knafel v. State, 714 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Thus, where the circuit court erroneously denies a motion for mitigation on the ground that it is untimely, certiorari may be employed to quash the order of denial. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 707 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); A…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thompson v. State, 707 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Anton Levon LEE v. State, 662 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Forney v. State, 662 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)