CHRISTOPHER S. WELDON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Petitioner Christopher Weldon sought a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his pending motion for new trial. The trial court erroneously refused to rule on the motion, claiming it was waived because it was not resolved before sentencing. The court held that under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the trial court has discretion to sentence before or after a motion for new trial is filed, and thus the motion was not waived.
A motion for new trial is not waived merely because the defendant is sentenced before the motion is ruled upon. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.630 expressly provides that the trial court may sentence either before or after filing of a motion for new trial, and the trial court has a duty to rule on timely motions for new trial.
[1] A trial court cannot refuse to rule on a timely filed motion for new trial based on the assertion that the motion is waived because it was not resolved before sentencing.
[2] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.630 permits a trial court to sentence a defendant either before or after the filing of a motion for new trial.
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“Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.630 expressly provides that the trial court in its discretion may sentence the defendant either before or after the filing of a motion for new trial, which refutes the trial court's position that a motion for new trial is waived if not resolved before sentencing.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that sentencing before ruling on a motion for new trial does not waive the motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWeldon was found guilty of second-degree grand theft, criminal mischief, and misdemeanor trespass. He filed a timely motion for new trial. The trial c…
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 Waiver Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
Petitioner, Christopher Weldon, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his motion for new trial.
Petitioner was found guilty of second-degree grand theft, criminal mischief and misdemeanor trespass, and filed a timely motion for new trial. On June 29, 2001, while that motion was pending, the trial court sentenced petitioner. Thereafter, at the hearing on the motion for new trial, the trial court refused to rule on the motion, deciding that it was waived because it was not resolved before sentencing.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.590(a) provides that a motion for new trial may be made within ten days after rendition of the verdict. There is no claim that the motion in this case was untimely. Although the trial court suggested that there was a statute requiring that a motion for new trial must be resolved before sentencing, neither the judge or the prosecutor could recall the exact statute. On appeal, the State, as respondent, has cited no such statute and does not suggest to this court that the trial court’s ruling was correct.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.630 expressly provides that the trial court in its discretion may sentence the defendant either before or after the filing of a motion for new trial, which refutes the trial court’s position that a motion for new trial is waived if not resolved before sentencing. In addition, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h)(1), provides that if a final order has been entered where a timely motion for new trial has been filed, the final order is not deemed rendered until the filing of a signed, written order disposing of such motion.
In response to the petition, the State merely argues that the issue is not appropriate for mandamus because the decision was “merely erroneous.” Alternatively, the State urges that refusal to rule based on waiver is tantamount to a denial, thus requiring the filing of an appeal, not mandamus. Although either jurisdictional basis may be proper, given the trial court’s express denial of defense counsel’s request that the court rule one way or the other, we find mandamus to be appropriate.
We grant the writ and remand for a ruling on the merits of the motion for new trial.
WRIT GRANTED.
HARRIS and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. State, 183 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…pecifically provides that the sentence may be imposed prior to the filing of a new trial. I think this rule recognizes that the judgment and sentence remain valid unless and until the motion for new trial is made and ruled upon. See Weldon v. State, 800 So. 2d 705, 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The procedure of entering judgment and sentence prior to filing a motion for new trial has been recognized for quite some time in Florida. See Shelby v. State, 155 Fla. 182, 21 So. 2d 787, 787 (1944). Moreover, the courts h…