SYLVIA P. MATHIS, 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.
Sylvia Mathis sought certiorari review of the trial court's denial of her motion to reduce her sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). The appellate court granted the petition because the trial court erroneously denied the motion as untimely when it was actually filed within the required 60-day window.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion as untimely because Mathis filed her motion on February 17, 2006, less than three weeks after sentencing on January 30, 2006, which was well within the 60-day window permitted by rule 3.800(c).
[1] A trial court may reduce or modify a sentence within 60 days after the date the sentence is imposed pursuant to rule 3.800(c), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[2] A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law when it erroneously denies a motion to reduce sentence as untimely when the motion was filed within the 60-da…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Rule 3.800(c) provides that a trial court may reduce or modify a sentence within 60 days after the date the sentence is imposed.”
Establishes the applicable legal standard for timely filing motions to reduce sentence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn November 9, 2005, Mathis was sentenced to five years in prison for violating probation. On January 30, 2006, she was sentenced to two concurrent fi…
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 For Reduction Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner, Sylvia Mathis, seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s denial of her Motion to Reduce Sentence, filed pursuant to rule 3.800(c), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Because the trial court erroneously denied the motion as untimely, we grant the petition and remand for a ruling on the merits.
On November 9, 2005, Mathis was found guilty of violating her probation and was sentenced to five years in prison. Later, in two separate cases, she pled nolo con-tendere to multiple counts of theft and various similar charges. On January 30, 2006, the trial court sentenced her on these two cases to two concurrent terms of five years in prison.
On February 17, 2006, Mathis filed a Motion to Reduce Sentence under rule 3.800(c). She requested that the trial court impose the sentences in the two cases from January 30, 2006, to run concurrent and coterminous with the sentence in the 2005 case. The trial court denied the motion as untimely on March 2, 2006, finding that more than 60 days had elapsed between sentencing on November 9, 2005 and the filing of the motion on February 17, 2006. Mathis then filed another motion, seeking the same relief, on March 9, 2006. The trial court denied this motion, as well, stating in an order issued on March 13th that it had already denied the same motion on March 2nd. Mathis then filed the instant petition for certiorari review of the trial court’s decision in this Court.
Rule 3.800(c) provides that a trial court may reduce or modify a sentence within 60 days after the date the sentence is imposed. See rule 3.800(c), Fla.R.Crim.P. In the instant case, Mathis’ sentences were imposed on January 30, 2006. She filed her rule 3.800(c) motion less than three weeks later, and refiled it only three weeks after that. Thus, both times Mathis filed her motion well within the sixty-day window in which the trial court could modify her sentence. Therefore, we conclude the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying the motion as untimely. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 471 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Timmer v. State, 840 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); State v. Paulino, 696 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
We grant the petition, quash the trial court’s orders of denial dated March 2nd and 13th, 2006, and remand for a consideration of the motion on the merits.
Petition granted, order quashed and cause remanded.
BROWNING, C.J., WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mathis v. State, 963 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…06-1775, granting the petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari and ordering the trial court to consider the merits of the petitioner’s motion to reduce or modify sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). Mathis v. State, 957 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). On May 10, 2007, the trial court complied with the opinion and denied petitioner’s motion on the merits. However, mandate for the opinion in case 06-1775 had not issued at the time the trial court entered its order. Thus, the tr…
-
Collins v. State, 968 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…rt’s order denying as untimely petitioner’s motion for reduction or modification of -sentence made pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) is hereby quashed. See Bacchus v. State, 958 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Mathis v. State, 957 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The cause is remanded to the circuit court with directions [*68] to dispose of petitioner’s motion on the merits. PETITION GRANTED. BARFIELD, WOLF, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.…
-
Arnett v. State, 150 So. 3d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…Because petitioner’s motion for modification of sentence was timely filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c), the petition for writ of certiorari is granted. See Jones v. State, 4 So. 3d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Mathis v. State, 957 So. 2d 692, 692-93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Griffin v. State, 979 So. 2d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that “imposition” of sentence by trial court under Rule 3.800(c) includes sentence imposed by trial court following reversal on appeal of denial of pos…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 471 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Timmer v. State, 840 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- State v. Paulino, 696 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)