LEE A. DAVIS, 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's denial of a motion to reduce sentence for lack of jurisdiction, when the motion was timely filed after an extension, is reversible.
Appellant filed a motion to enlarge time to file a motion to reduce sentence, which the trial court granted. Appellant then filed his motion within th…
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 Reduce Or Modify Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Lee A. Davis, appeals the trial court’s denial of his Motion to Reduce or Modify Sentence. • The trial court denied the motion, holding it lacked jurisdiction because the motion was not filed within 60 days after Appellant was sentenced. We reverse.
A trial court’s order denying, on the merits, a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) motion to mitigate sentence is not appealable. Mitchell v. State, 719 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). However, an appellate 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 granting the motion and extended the time as requested. See Fla. R. Crim P. 3.050. Appellant filed his motion on March 24, 1999. Thus, the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion on the merits. Sullivan v. State, 677 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The trial court’s failure to do so constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. Moya v. State, 668 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
REVERSED and REMANDED for consideration of Appellant’s motion on the merits.
ALLEN, BENTON and BROWNING, JJ„ CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (39 total)
-
Lancaster v. State, 821 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…on the trial court’s mistaken belief that it did not have jurisdiction to rule). The trial court’s failure to consider Lancaster’s motion on the merits was a departure from the essential requirements of law. See Moya, 668 So. 2d 279; Davis v. State, 745 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Therefore, we treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, grant the petition, and quash the order dismissing Lancaster’s motion. On remand, the trial court must consider Lancaster’s motion for reduction or mitigatio…
-
Ward v. State, 854 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…he court on December 21, 2001. Thus, the circuit court erred in finding the motion untimely. “A trial court’s order denying, on the merits, a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) motion to mitigate sentence is not appealable.” Dams v. State, 745 So. 2d 499, 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). “However, an appellate 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.” Id. In this case, contra…
-
Jolly v. State, 803 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…c) motion to mitigate sentence on the merits is not appealable, an 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 o…
Previewing 3 of 39 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mitchell v. State, 719 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Moya v. State, 668 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Thompson v. State, 707 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Roauer v. State, 697 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Sullivan v. State, 677 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)