JONATHAN THOMAS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
JONATHAN THOMAS, PETITIONER,
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
751 So. 2d 764
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2000)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
By petition for writ of certiorari, Jonathan Thomas seeks review of an order denying his motion for sentence modification. He contends that the circuit court applied the incorrect law in disposing of his motion, and the state acknowledges that certain language in the court’s order suggests that it treated petitioner’s motion as if it were seeking relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), rather than Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). Accordingly, we quash the circuit court’s order denying petitioner’s motion for sentence modification and remand the matter for reconsideration of the motion on its merits.
ALLEN, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spaulding v. State, 93 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…oticed. See Alexander v. State, 816 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The First District has granted relief on the State’s concession when the trial court erroneously treated the motion as if it were filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a). See Thoas v. State, 751 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). In that situation, the trial court simply applied the wrong law.3 The question in this proceeding is whether certiorari review of orders on motions pursuant to rule 3.800(c) extends to a broader range of issues than those descr…
-
Armour v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 963 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…ought certiorari or mandamus relief, and directed him to pay a filing fee. The lower court departed from the essential requirements of law by construing Armour’s petition for writ of habe-as corpus as seeking non-habeas relief. See Thomas v. State, 751 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (granting certiorari because the circuit court applied the incorrect law by treating petitioner’s 3.800(c) motion as seeking relief under rule 3.800(a), and did not reach the merits of the motion). Armour was not challenging the…