DANNIE SIMMONS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
DANNIE SIMMONS, APPELLANT,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
907 So. 2d 646
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2005)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. There is no jurisdiction for the trial court to entertain this 3.800(c) motion as the mandate of appeal issued on February 11, 2005, and the pro se motion was filed after more than sixty days. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(c).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Mendiola, 919 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…be cured by treating the order as one "mitigat [*473] ing” the sentence because the jurisdictional time for mitigation had long since expired. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(c)(court may reduce or modify legal sentence within 60 days); Simmons v. State, 907 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).…
-
Curtis v. State, 915 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…n v. State, 613 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Singletary v. Marchetti, 691 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Mr. Curtis’s motion was filed well beyond the sixty-day period, and the trial court had no authority to grant him relief. See Simmons v. State, 907 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); see also State v. Mendiola, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D2039, — So. 2d-, 2005 WL 2088008 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug.31, 2005) (defect in sentence credit could not be cured by treating the order as one “mitigating” the sentence because the jurisdict…