STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
BRENDA WOODARD, 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.
The trial court lost jurisdiction to modify a sentence when it failed to act within the sixty-day period required by rule.
Brenda Woodard pled no contest to felony drug charges and was sentenced to jail. Her pro se motion to modify her sentence was timely filed within sixt…
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 Motion To Modify Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
OFTEDAL, RICHARD L., Associate Judge.
The State appeals an order of the trial judge granting Brenda Woodard’s motion to modify her jail sentence.
On October 22, 2002, Woodard pled no contest to two felony counts of possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. She was sentenced that same day on both counts to eight months in jail with credit for forty-five days time served. Her pro se motion to modify sentence was mailed in November 2002, within the sixty-day window period for filing as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c).1 Although Woodard’s motion was timely filed, no action was taken or hearing held until February 18, 2002, at which time the trial court reduced her sentence to time served.
The State correctly argues that the trial court lost jurisdiction when it failed to reduce or modify Woodard’s sentence within sixty days of imposition of sentence. See Hussey v. State, 739 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). This is so even where, as in this case, the “motion sat in the court file while the time period expired.” Grosse v. State, 511 So. 2d 688, 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); see also State v. Blue, 603 So. 2d 648, 649 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)(“It is irrelevant that the motion to mitigate sentence was made within the sixty-day period.”). It is the sole responsibility of the movant to see that the motion is scheduled for a hearing within the window period.
Just as the Fifth District did in Blue, we elect to treat the State’s appeal as a petition for common-law writ of certiorari, inasmuch as it alleges that the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, the petition is granted and the order granting Woodard’s motion to modify her sentence is quashed.
PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.
POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur. . Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) provides that, in the absence of a timely appeal, "[a] court may reduce or modify ... a legal sentence imposed by it within 60 days after the imposition.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Childers v. State, 972 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…ction of sentence when no hearing was scheduled and no action was taken within the sixty-day window. The court posited that the pro se inmate had a duty to schedule a healing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.060. See also State v. Woodard, 866 So. 2d 120, 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“It is the sole responsibility of the movant to see that the motion is scheduled for a hearing within the window period.”); Hussey v. State, 739 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); cf. State v. Grandstaff 927 So. 2d 1035 (Fla.…
-
McCORMICK v. State, 961 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…to include any of the provisions of chapter 948, Florida Statutes, a legal sentence imposed by it within 60 days after the imposition.... The trial court loses jurisdiction to consider the motion once the sixty-day period expires. State v. Woodard, 866 So. 2d 120, 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). McCormick was sentenced on November 9, 2006, according to the trial court’s order. McCormick placed his motion in the prison mail on January 2, 2007, [*1101] or Day 54. According to the trial court’s order, the motion was…
-
State v. Grandstaff, 927 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…he State of Florida appeals the trial judge’s decision to mitigate Appellee’s DUI sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). This Court treats such appeals as petitions for common-law writs of certiorari. See State v. Woodard, 866 So. 2d 120, 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); compare Fla. R.App. P. 9.100(c)(1), with Fla. RApp. P. 9.140(c). Because the trial court did not. depart from the essential requirements of the law in mitigating Appellee’s sentence, we deny the writ. [*1036] On November 2,…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Grosse v. State, 511 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- State v. Blue, 603 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Hussey v. State, 739 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)