KIMBERLY BYRD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 court held that a motion to correct, reduce, or modify a sentence filed within sixty days of an appellate dismissal order is timely, even if filed more than sixty days after the original sentencing.
[1] A motion to correct, reduce, and modify sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) is timely if filed within sixty days after rendition of the…
[2] Certiorari review is available for an order dismissing a rule 3.800(c) motion based on an erroneous determination of untimeliness.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKimberly Byrd filed a motion to correct sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(c) more than sixty days after sentencing but within sixty days of an order dis…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(C) cases and more on FLexlaw
[*826] SALCINES, Judge.
Kimberly Byrd seeks certiorari review of an order dismissing as untimely a motion to correct, reduce, and modify sentence which Byrd had filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). The State candidly concedes that this case warrants certiorari relief. We agree and grant Byrd’s petition.
Byrd was sentenced in two cases on May 18, 2005. One of those cases concerned the revocation of her probation, circuit court case number CRC 02-12710 CFANO, and the other concerned a conviction for a new offense, circuit court case number CRC 05-00801 CFANO.
Byrd timely filed a notice of appeal as to both cases. However, before an appellate decision on the merits had been made, Byrd filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. This court rendered an order dismissing Byrd’s appeal on July 14, 2005.
Shortly thereafter, on July 25, 2005, Byrd filed with the circuit court the subject rule 3.800(c) motion to correct, reduce, and modify the sentence imposed in case number CRC 05-00801 CFANO. The circuit court found that the motion was filed more than sixty days after sentencing and was thus untimely. The circuit court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the motion.
Critical to the circuit court’s determination regarding the timeliness of the motion was the mistaken belief that Byrd had not taken an appeal from case number CRC 05-00801 CFANO, the case in which she lodged her 3.800(c) motion.1 An appeal had been taken, and Byrd had sixty days after rendition of the order dismissing the appeal within which to file her rule 3.800(c) motion. The appeal was dismissed on July 14, 2005, and the motion was filed on July 25, 2005. Thus, the motion was timely.
Although an order entered on a rule 3.800(c) motion to reduce or modify a sentence is not appealable, it is subject to review in an extraordinary case under this court’s certiorari jurisdiction. Moya v. State, 668 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Such review extends to orders of dismissal entered upon an erroneous determination that the motion was untimely filed as in the present case. See Seward v. State, 912 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
Accordingly, we quash the order that dismissed Byrd’s motion as untimely and remand to the circuit court for its consideration of the motion on the merits.
Petition granted.
NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur. . We note that the circuit court's mistake is understandable. The dismissal of the appeal occurred at a very early stage in the appellate process, and at least one item contained in the record might have suggested that the dismissal related to only one of the cases appealed rather than both of the cases.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cunniff v. State, 950 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…dge. Ronald Cunniff petitions for certiorari review of an order dismissing as untimely his motion for mitigation of sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). We have jurisdiction to review the order. See Byrd v. State, 920 So. 2d 825, 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Seward v. State, 912 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in dismissing the motion, we grant the petition, quash the trial court’s order, and remand for…
-
Griffin v. State, 979 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…State, 765 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (granting petition where rule 3.800(c) motion was timely filed within sixty days of date of denial of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court as to petitioner’s original direct appeal); Byrd v. State, 920 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quashing order dismissing rule 3.800(c) motion as untimely, though filed within a few days of voluntary dismissal of defendant’s direct appeal). Rule 3.800(c) (emphasis added) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: A court ma…
-
Kmata Ukaj v. State, 969 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…lower court was of the mistaken impression that the motion was untimely, we treat the appeal as a petition for certio-rari, grant the petition and quash the order under review. Diaz v. State, 931 So. 2d 1002, 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Byrd v. State, 920 So. 2d 825, 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). On remand, the trial court is directed to address the motion on the merits. ORDER QUASHED; CASE REMANDED. PLEUS, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Moya v. State, 668 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Seward v. State, 912 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)