STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH L. WILLIAMS, APPELLEE; KENNETH L. WILLIAMS, 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 Florida First District Court of Appeal consolidated two appeals concerning whether a trial court had jurisdiction to modify a defendant's sentence while a direct appeal was pending. The court held that a trial court loses jurisdiction to rule on a motion to modify sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) once a direct appeal is filed, and therefore vacated the trial court's modification.
No. The trial court loses jurisdiction to rule on a motion to modify sentence while a direct appeal is pending. The state's appeal was granted as a petition for certiorari, and the orders modifying the sentence and placing Williams on community control and probation were vacated.
[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction to rule on a motion to modify sentence when a direct appeal is pending.
[2] A petition for a writ of certiorari is the proper method to challenge a trial court's order reducing a sentence as being beyond its jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The trial court loses jurisdiction to rule on such a motion while a direct appeal is pending.”
Establishes the core legal principle that trial courts cannot modify sentences under Rule 3.800(c) when an appeal is pending
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 28, 1999, Williams' probation was revoked and he was sentenced to 44.1 months in prison. On November 22, 1999, Williams filed a notice of a…
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 Modify Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
WEBSTER, J.
We have consolidated two appeals arising out of the same criminal case. In case number 1D00-606, the state asserts that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to rule on a motion to modify sentence while a direct appeal was pending. In case number 1D00-732, the public defender has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); and appellant (Williams), in proper person, has filed a brief which, among other things, agrees with the state that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on his motion to modify sentence because a direct appeal was pending.
We affirm as to all issues raised in case number 1D00-732. In case number 1D00-606, we agree with the state that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion to modify sentence while a direct appeal was pending.
Accordingly, we vacate the order modifying sentence, and the subsequent order of community control and probation.
On October 28, 1999, pursuant to his admission, Williams’ probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to 44.1 months in prison.
On November 10, 1999, the trial court received from Williams a letter, which it treated as a motion to mitigate sentence.
On November 22,1999, Williams, in proper person, filed a notice of appeal.
On December 21, 1999, Williams’ attorney filed a motion to mitigate sentence. On the following day, apparently without holding a hearing or obtaining the state’s consent, the trial court granted that motion, reinstating Williams to probation subject to certain conditions, and setting a hearing for January 28, 2000. At the January 28 hearing, the state advised the trial court that Williams had filed a notice of appeal on November 22.
The trial court responded that it was aware of that, but that it believed it still had jurisdiction to consider the motion to mitigate sentence.
The trial court then modified the sentence again, placing Williams on community control for one year, to be followed by one year of probation. The appeal which had been filed by Williams, in proper person, was' subsequently dismissed on February 15, 2000, for failure to pay the filing fee. These appeals follow.
The motions to mitigate (or modify) sentence were filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c).
The trial court loses jurisdiction to rule on such a motion while a direct appeal is pending. E.g., Nelson v. State, 724 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Smith v. State, 407 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We treat the state’s appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari. E.g., State v. Blue, 603 So. 2d 648, 649 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (a petition for a writ of certiorari is the proper method by which to challenge as beyond its jurisdiction a trial court’s order reducing a sentence); Hudson v. Hofmann, 471 So. 2d 117, 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (common law certiorari is the proper method by which to challenge an action of a lower court as in excess of its jurisdiction).
Accordingly, in case number 1D00-606, we grant the writ, and vacate the order modifying sentence and the subsequent order of community control and probation.
We affirm, without discussion, as to all issues raised by Williams in case number 1D00-732. On remand, the trial court is directed to reinstate the initial sentence of 44.1 months in prison.
MINER and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maybin v. State, 884 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…s sentence because the motion to mitigate was untimely. See Wilhelm v. State, 543 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). However, the State failed to seek review of this order by filing a petition for writ of certiorari in this court. See State v. Williams, 780 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); State v. Swett, 772 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). After the trial court mitigated his sentence, Maybin was released from prison. By the time the State filed the rule 3.800(a) motion and the trial court realized its mistake in m…
-
Othouse v. State, 912 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…motion to mitigate his sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). But three days later he filed his notice of appeal. That notice divested the circuit court of jurisdiction to rule on the pending motion. See State v. Williams, 780 So. 2d 1031, 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Our affirmance is without prejudice to Othouse’s right to pursue his motion to mitigate sentence. See Lacquey v. State, 731 So. 2d 724, 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Affirmed. FULMER, C.J., and NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, JJ.,…
-
Liranzo-Cruzata v. State, 6 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…PER CURIAM. Reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the initial sentence of eight years in prison. See State v. Williams, 780 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (holding that trial court loses jurisdiction to rule on a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) motion to mitigate or modify sentence while direct appeal is pending; remanding with directions to reinstate the initial senten…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Hudson v. Hofmann, 471 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- State v. Blue, 603 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Ernie Howard Nelson v. State, 724 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Smith v. State, 407 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)