CLYDE LANCASTER, 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.
Lancaster appealed the trial court's dismissal of his motion to reduce his five-year grand theft sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). The appellate court granted certiorari relief, finding the trial court erred in dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction when the motion was actually timely filed, and remanded for the trial court to consider the motion on the merits.
The trial court erred in dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction. The motion was timely filed within sixty days of the appellate court's mandate, and the trial court's factual finding that the appeal was still pending was incorrect. The trial court must consider the motion on the merits.
[1] An order on a motion to reduce or mitigate sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) may be reviewed by certiorari when the trial court dismisses o…
[2] A trial court is divested of jurisdiction to consider a motion for reduction or mitigation of sentence when a direct appeal is pending.
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“Lancaster filed his motion to reduce or modify sentence on April 12, 2002, within sixty days of this court's mandate in his direct appeal; thus, the motion was timely.”
Establishes that the motion was filed within the required timeframe, making the trial court's dismissal for untimeliness improper.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLancaster was convicted and sentenced to five years for grand theft on January 23, 2001. He filed a notice of appeal on February 2, 2001. The District…
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 Divestiture Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
Clyde Lancaster appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing his motion for reduction or mitigation of sentence filed pur suant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). We treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, grant the petition, and direct the trial court to consider the motion on the merits.
Lancaster filed his motion for reduction or mitigation of sentence on April 12, 2002, seeking to reduce his five-year sentence for grand theft. The motion states that the date of his conviction and sentencing was January 23, 2001. In an order entered on May 1, 2002, the trial court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. The order stated that Lancaster had filed a notice of appeal on February 2, 2001, and that the appeal was still pending when the trial court entered its order of May 1, 2002, thus divesting the trial court of jurisdiction to rule on Lancaster’s motion. See Holmes v. State, 711 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
An order on a motion to reduce or mitigate sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(c) is not appealable, but it may be reviewed pursuant to this court’s certiorari 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 Lancaster’s conviction and sentence on February 22, 2002, and mandate issued on March 22, 2002. Lancaster filed his motion to reduce or modify sentence on April 12, 2002, within sixty days of this court’s mandate in his direct appeal; thus, the motion was timely. See Jolly, 803 So. 2d 846 (quashing order which denied motion on the trial court’s mistaken belief that it did not have jurisdiction to rule). The trial court’s failure to consider Lancaster’s motion on the merits was a departure from the essential requirements of law. See Moya, 668 So. 2d 279; Davis v. State, 745 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
Therefore, we treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, grant the petition, and quash the order dismissing Lancaster’s motion. On remand, the trial court must consider Lancaster’s motion for reduction or mitigation of sentence on the merits.
Petition granted and remanded for further proceedings.
ALTENBERND and SALCINES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spaulding v. State, 93 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…o correct only a very narrow range of mistakes. Most decisions granting certiorari relief from such orders have done so because the trial court erroneously concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. See, e.g., Lancaster v. State, 821 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). On at least one occasion, this court has granted relief because the trial court expressly ruled that it did not have authority to modify a condition of probation in such a proceeding. See Wesner v. State, 843 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2d…
-
Kwapil v. State, 44 So. 3d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…lazquez v. State, 917 So. 2d 306, 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). A circuit court departs from the essential requirements of the law when it dismisses a timely rule 3.800(c) motion without considering the merits of the motion. See, e.g., Lancaster v. State, 821 So. 2d 416, 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Atkins v. State, 851 So. 2d 829, 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). This court has applied the mailbox rule to rule 3.800(c) motions and has considered those motions filed when provided to prison officials. See Childers v. State, 972…
-
Staveley v. State, 866 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…DCA 2003); Adams v. State, 800 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). . See Ward v. State, 854 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Haber v. State, 849 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 20Ó3); Pitts v. State, 837 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Lancaster v. State, 821 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- Moya v. State, 668 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Roauer v. State, 697 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Jolly v. State, 803 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Holmes v. State, 711 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)