PATRICK R. STAVELEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2004-01-16
No. 5D03-3604
SAWAYA, C.J., GRIFFIN and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
866 So. 2d 1239 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2004) 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.


Holding

The appellate court denied the petition for writ of certiorari because the motion to mitigate sentence was untimely filed.


Facts & Procedural History

Defendant filed a motion to mitigate sentence, which the trial court denied as untimely. The defendant appealed this denial.…

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.

[*1240] PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Patrick Staveley [“Stave-ley”], has appealed an order denying his rule 3.800(c) motion to mitigate sentence on the basis that the motion was untimely. An order denying a rule 3.800(c) motion usually is not an appealable order, because the trial court’s ruling is purely discretionary; 1 however, an order denying a rule 3.800(c) motion on the basis of lack of jurisdiction is reviewable by certiorari.2 Because the trial-court denied Staveley’s motion as untimely, the order is reviewable by certiorari. We accordingly treat Staveley’s appeal as a petition for writ.of certiorari. On the merits, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari because the motion to mitigate was untimely filed.

WRIT DENIED.

SAWAYA, C.J., GRIFFIN and PLEUS, JJ., concur. . See, e.g., Rector v. State, 852 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st 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).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Edsel I. DEL Valle v. State, 948 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
    …We hold the trial court had jurisdiction, grant the petition for writ of certiorari, and remand for consideration on the merits. An order denying a rule 3.800(c) motion based on lack of jurisdiction is reviewable by certiorari. Staveley v. State, 866 So. 2d 1239, 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). If the trial court improperly denies the motion due to untimeliness, its order departs from the essential requirements of the law entitling the defendant to certiora-ri relief. Pruitt v. State, 932 So. 2d 617-18 (Fla. 1st…
  • Candido Martinez v. State, 948 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Staveley v. State, 866 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).…
  • Ross v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
    …ly discretionary, orders denying such motions are not subject to appeal. Spaulding v. State, 93 So. 3d 473, 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (“It is well established that an order denying a motion under rule 3.800(c) is not appealable”); Stavely v. State, 866 So. 2d 1239, 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“An order denying a rule 3.800(c) motion is usually not an appealable order, because the trial court’s ruling is purely discretionary.”). The order, however, may be reviewed under this Court’s certiorari jurisdiction, i…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (11 total)

View all 11 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw