JEREMY RIGGS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. 1st DCA | 2003-05-15
No. 1D02-0245
Allen, C.J., Webster, J., Browning, J.
847 So. 2d 1037 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2003) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases

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.

Synopsis

Petitioner's certiorari petition challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to reduce sentence is denied because he failed to meet the rigid standard for certiorari review and orders denying sentence mitigation motions are not directly appealable.


Holding

An order denying a motion to mitigate or reduce sentence is not a directly appealable order and does not provide a proper basis for certiorari relief absent procedural error by the trial court.


Headnotes

[1] An order denying a motion to reduce or mitigate sentence is not directly appealable and does not provide a basis for certiorari relief absent a showing of procedural erro…

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 intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Jeremy Riggs sought certiorari review of the trial court's order denying his motion for modification/reduction of sentence.…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Jeremy Riggs, the petitioner, seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order denying his motion for modification/reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction. See Jolly v. State, 803 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Davis v. State, 745 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Roauer v. State, 697 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). However, Petitioner has not met the rigid standard of certiorari review. See Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1995) (stating that certiorari standard of review is whether circuit court afforded due process and complied with the essential requirements of law). Riggs misplaces his reliance on factually distinguishable cases like Jolly, Davis, and Roauer permitting certiorari review of the denial of a motion to reduce sentence where the trial court procedurally erred, e.g., by mistakenly basing the denial on a finding of untimeliness. The State correctly notes that an order denying a motion to mitigate sentence is not a directly appealable order. See, e.g., Zamora v. State, 810 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Oser v. State, 699 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Lee v. State, 662 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Daniels v. State, 568 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (dismissing based on finding that district court lacked jurisdiction to review order denying mitigation or reduction of sentence). Therefore, Petitioner has demonstrated no proper basis for relief.

PETITION DENIED.

ALLEN, C.J., WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Pillajo v. State, 60 So. 3d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
    …to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) is appealable. See Williams v. State, 884 So. 2d 374, 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (explaining that dismissing a pleading with leave to amend “renders the order nonfinal and nonap-pealable”); Riggs v. State, 847 So. 2d 1037, 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (explaining that “an order denying a motion to mitigate sentence is not a directly appealable order”). In its order responding to Pillajo’s rule 3.850 postconviction motion, the court dismissed the motion with leave to re…
  • Tarsis Linhares v. State, 36 So. 3d 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
    …ed more than 30 days after rendition of the order, this Court is without appellate jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b). A motion to mitigate under rule 3.800(c) is discretionary with the court and is itself not appeal-able. See Riggs v. State, 847 So. 2d 1037, 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). DISMISSED. KAHN, ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.…
  • Elmon Quijada v. State, 915 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
    …PER CURIAM. DENIED. Riggs v. State, 847 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). WEBSTER, PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., concur.…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw