MARY D. JOLLY, 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.
The appellate court granted certiorari to review a trial court's erroneous denial of a Rule 3.800(c) sentence modification motion based on lack of jurisdiction, finding the motion timely filed within 60 days of mandate and remanding for consideration on the merits.
A trial court's denial of a Rule 3.800(c) motion to reduce or modify sentence based on lack of jurisdiction is reviewable by certiorari when the motion was timely filed within 60 days of mandate.
[1] A trial court's denial of a Rule 3.800(c) motion to reduce or modify sentence based on lack of jurisdiction is reviewable by certiorari when the motion was timely filed w…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Jolly filed a motion for reduction or modification of sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) within 60 days of ma…
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 Modification Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Petitioner challenges the trial court’s summary denial of her motion for reduction/modification of sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). Although a trial court’s order denying a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) motion to mitigate sentence on the merits is not appealable, an appellate court may exercise its certiorari jurisdiction to review a case where the motion was denied for lack of jurisdiction based on the motion’s untimeliness. See Davis v. State, 745 So. 2d 499, 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see also Roauer v. State, 697 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
The trial court denied the Petitioner’s motion on the mistaken belief that it no longer had jurisdiction to rule. Because the motion was filed within 60 days of the date that mandate issued in the Petitioner’s direct appeal, the motion was timely. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(c). Accordingly, we treat the Petitioner’s appeal of that denial as a petition for writ of certiorari. We grant the petition, quash the trial court’s order denying the Petitioner’s motion for reduction/modification of sentence, and remand with instructions for the trial court to consider the motion on its merits.
QUASHED AND REMANDED.
DAVIS, BENTON, and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lancaster v. State, 821 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…rari jurisdiction when a trial court dismisses or denies the motion for lack of jurisdiction due to the motion’s untimeliness. See Roauer v. State, 697 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Moya v. State, 668 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Jolly v. State, 803 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). The trial court erred when it stated in its order that Lancaster’s direct appeal was pending. It further erred when it dismissed Lancaster’s motion for lack of jurisdiction. This court’s records reflect that this court affirmed…1 / 2
-
Ward v. State, 854 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…t’s determination, it did have jurisdiction to consider the motion on the merits and its failure to do so constitutes.a departure from the essential requirements of law. See, e.g., Atkins v. State, 851 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Jolly v. State, 803 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Therefore, we treat the appeal of the denial of this order as a petition for writ of certiorari, quash the circuit court’s order denying the motion, and remand with instructions for the court to consider the motion on its merits…
-
Terence C. Atkins v. State, 851 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…). The trial court denied the motion as untimely. However, pursuant to the “mailbox rule,” the motion was filed within 60 days of this court’s issuance of mandate on petitioner’s direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion was timely. See Jolly v. State, 803 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Thus, the trial court had jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s motion on the merits, and its failure to do so is a departure from the essential requirements of the law. See Davis v. State, 745 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).…
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
- Davis v. State, 745 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Roauer v. State, 697 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)