MICHAEL EUGENE AKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Court dismissed appeal from denial of motion to reconsider sentence because such orders are not appealable and appellant failed to establish basis for certiorari jurisdiction.
An order denying a motion to reconsider sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) is not appealable and does not provide a basis for certiorari jurisdiction.
[1] Orders denying motions to reconsider sentences under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) are not appealable.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Akins violated his probation and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. He filed a timely motion to reconsider his sentence, which the tri…
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 Mitigate Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Michael Akins violated his probation and was sentenced to five years’ -imprisonment. He timely filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, which the court denied. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(c). Akins challenges that denial in this appeal. Such an order is not appealable, however, and Akins has shown no basis for invoking our certiorari jurisdiction. See Tsikuris v. State, 913 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Accordingly, we dismiss this proceeding.
We note that Akins has also raised a double jeopardy issue concerning a supposed amendment of his sentence. The circuit court originally sentenced him on November 19, 2004. In his brief, Akins claims that on April 29, 2005, the court entered an amended sentence designating him as a habitual offender, a provision not included in his original sentence. Akins’s motion to mitigate and this appeal from the denial of that motion were filed before the amended sentence was rendered. Moreover, our record does not establish that he has challenged the amendment in the circuit court. As such, we have no jurisdiction to review the double jeopardy issue in this proceeding. We express no opinion about whether Akins may be entitled to relief on that point. See Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla.2003); Evans v. State, 675 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). But see Scanes v. State, 876 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 892 So. 2d 1014 (Fla.2004). But this opinion is without prejudice to his right, if any, to raise this issue in a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
Dismissed.
SALCINES, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Akins, 69 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 2011)…violated because he was not present when the amendment was made. Akins also filed an appeal in the Second District, seeking review of his 3.800(a) motion and filed a motion seeking review of a nonappealable rule 3.800(c) order. See Akins v. State, 926 So. 2d 412, 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Akins alleged that the amendment of his sentence offended double jeopardy. Id. at 413. The Second District concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review Akins’ double jeopardy claim because Akins’ motion to mitigate and hi…
-
Walters v. State, 994 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…0(a), 3.850, and 3.800(c). An order denying a rule 3.800(c) motion on its merits is not appealable. Accordingly, we limit our review to the portions of the postconviction court’s order denying Walters’ 3.800(a) and 3.850 motions. See Akins v. State, 926 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Morrow v. State, 799 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The postconviction court’s order was entered upon relinquishment of jurisdiction by this court from Walters’ appeal of an oral order denying his motions. The written order co…
-
Stauderman v. State, 261 So. 3d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…Fla. 2011), because "defendant did not preserve the alleged error by bringing the alleged error to the circuit court's attention by objecting at the time of sentencing or by filing a rule 3.800 motion to correct sentencing error"); Akins v. State, 926 So. 2d 412, 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ("[O]ur record does not establish that he has challenged the - 9 - amendment in the circuit court. As such, we have no jurisdiction to review the double jeopardy issue in this proceeding."). Second, I disagree with the…
Authorities Cited
- Columbus Rickey Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003)
- State v. West, 892 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 2005)
- Evans v. State, 675 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Scanes v. State, 876 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Adrianne Tsikuris v. State, 913 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)