ANDREW A. MORROW, 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 denial of a motion for reduction and modification is a nonappealable order, and the denial of motions seeking jail credit is affirmed without prejudice.
Andrew A. Morrow appealed the trial court's summary denial of two motions and two petitions for writ of mandamus, all seeking additional jail credit. …
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 Non-Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Andrew A. Morrow timely appeals the trial court’s summary denial of two motions and two petitions for writ of mandamus filed in case numbers 96-10896 and 96-20824. We affirm the appeal in part and dismiss in part.
Initially, we determine the trial court properly found that Morrow’s motion for hearing of final adjudication should be treated as a motion for reduction and modification pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). That portion of the trial court’s order denying this motion is considered a. nonappealable order. See Moya v. State, 668 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Because the trial court correctly found Morrow’s motion to reduce sentence was untimely filed, we decline to treat Morrow’s appeal of that order as a petition for writ of certiorari and dismiss this portion of Morrow’s appeal.
In addition to the motion for hearing of final adjudication, Morrow filed two petitions for writ of mandamus and a supple mental motion. All of these pleadings sought additional jail credit in these two cases. The trial court treated these pleadings as motions seeking jail credit pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm without comment the trial court’s order denying Morrow relief on these various pleadings. However, this affirmance is without prejudice to Morrow’s ability, if any, to file in the trial court a facially sufficient, factually specific motion seeking additional jail credit pursuant to rule 3.800(a). See Deese v. State, 782 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part.
PARKER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walters v. State, 994 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)….800(c) motion on its merits is not appealable. Accordingly, we limit our review to the portions of the postconviction court’s order denying Walters’ 3.800(a) and 3.850 motions. See Akins v. State, 926 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Morrow v. State, 799 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The postconviction court’s order was entered upon relinquishment of jurisdiction by this court from Walters’ appeal of an oral order denying his motions. The written order contains no findings, explanation, or record attachment…
-
Adrianne Tsikuris v. State, 913 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…rect, reduce, or modify sentence that was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). An order denying such a motion is not appealable, and Tsikuris has shown no basis for invoking our certiorari jurisdiction. See Morrow v. State, 799 So. 2d 1094, 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Sirmons v. State, 775 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Accordingly, we dismiss her appeal. Dismissed. WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Moya v. State, 668 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Deese v. State, 782 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)