ROBERT HABER, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. 5th DCA | 2003-07-18
No. 5D03-1181
SHARP, W., PLEUS and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
849 So. 2d 1148 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2003) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Haber seeks certiorari review of an order denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) to reduce or modify his sentence. Although the motion was timely filed, because the hearing was not completed within the sixty-day period set forth in the rule, the trial court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion on the merits. Such orders are reviewable by certiorari. See Arnold v. State, 621 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

Based on Timmer v. State, 840 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), which had not been published at the time the trial court made its decision, we quash the order under review and remand the matter for consideration of Haber’s motion on the merits.

CERTIORARI GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.

SHARP, W., PLEUS and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Graham v. State, 24 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
    …urt has consistently held that trial courts retain jurisdiction to hear timely filed motions pursuant to rule 3.800(c) past the sixty-day time frame. See Wills, 963 So. 2d at 356; Timmer v. State, 840 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Haber v. State, 849 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In Timmer, we held that where the motion for mitigation was timely filed, no formal motion for enlargement of time under rule 3.050 was required when the scheduling of the hearing beyond the sixty-day period was beyond the defen…
  • Staveley v. State, 866 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
    …DCA 2003); Wilson v. State, 846 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); McDonald v. State, 840 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1st 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).…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw