CHRISTINE PARRILLO, 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 court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion as filed, but must deny it as untimely on remand.
Appellant filed a motion to mitigate sentence more than sixty days after sentencing, mislabeling it under a rule for sentencing errors pending appeal.…
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.
More than sixty days after the imposition of her sentence Appellant filed a motion to mitigate her sentence, mislabeling the motion as pursuant to rule 3.800(b) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 Even though the motion failed to allege any sentencing error and no appeal was pending, the trial court summarily denied the motion, explaining that it was denied under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1)(B), a rule that pertains to motions to correct sentencing errors that are filed pending appeal. We reverse and remand.
On remand, however, the trial court must deny as untimely appellant’s motion to mitigate her sentence since her motion was filed more than sixty days after imposition of her sentence. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(c).
GUNTHER, FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . The former Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) became rule 3.800(c) on January 1, 1997. See Amendments to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g) and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, 675 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1996).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Amendments TO Fla. Rule OF App. Procedure 9.020(g) & Fla. Rule OF Crim. Procedure 3.800, 675 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1996)