STEVEN HUSSEY, PETITIONER,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Gafford v. State, 783 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
  …State, 767 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Courts have characterized the 60 day time limit for reducing or modifying a sentence under rule 3.800(c) as jurisdictional. See, e.g., Knapp v. State, 741 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Hussey v. State, 739 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Bowling v. State, 688 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Accordingly, the 30 day limit under 3.170(0 is also jurisdictional; therefore, the trial court did not have the authority to consider Gafford’s motion below, and the issue wa…
• Schlabach v. State, 37 So. 3d 230 (Fla. 2010)
  …soned: This court has adopted the view that where a motion to mitigate is timely filed, but no hearing is scheduled and no action is taken within sixty days after imposition of sentence, the trial court loses jurisdiction to do so. Hussey v. State, 739 So. 2d 123, 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citing Grosse v. State, 511 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); see also State v. Grandstaff, 927 So. 2d 1035, 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)) (“This rule has been construed to require reduction or modification within the sixty-day p…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• State v. Woodard, 866 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
  …hich time the trial court reduced her sentence to time served. The State correctly argues that the trial court lost jurisdiction when it failed to reduce or modify Woodard’s sentence within sixty days of imposition of sentence. 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)(…

Authorities Cited

• Grosse v. State, 511 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)