RICHARD CHARLES SHAFER, DOC # 114075, 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.
Richard Charles Shafer petitioned for certiorari review of an order dismissing his motion for mitigation of sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). The trial court dismissed the motion based on a misapplication of State v. Woodard, concluding it had lost jurisdiction. The appellate court granted the petition, finding that under controlling precedent (Cunniff v. State), the trial court should have considered the motion on its merits or extended the time for consideration.
The trial court should have either considered the motion on its merits or extended the time for considering the motion when it was filed within the sixty-day modification period. The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by dismissing the motion based on a misapplication of Woodard.
[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction to consider a motion for mitigation of sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) if the motion is filed wi…
[2] When a motion for mitigation of sentence is filed within the sixty-day modification period, the trial court must either consider the motion on its merits or extend the ti…
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“the trial court should have either considered the motion on its merits or extended the time for considering the motion”
Establishes the controlling standard from Cunniff that the trial court must follow when a Rule 3.800(c) motion is filed before expiration of the sixty-day modification period.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShafer was sentenced on December 20, 2006. He filed a motion for mitigation of sentence on February 9, 2007, which was eleven days before the sixty-da…
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 Jurisdiction To Modify Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge.
Richard Charles Shafer petitions for certiorari review of an order dismissing 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 Cunniff v. State, 950 So. 2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Byrd v. State, 920 So. 2d 825, 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). The State rightfully concedes that this case warrants certiorari relief. We agree and grant Mr. Shafer’s petition.
Mr. Shafer was sentenced on December 20, 2006.1 He filed his rule 3.800(c) motion on February 9, 2007. Under rule 3.800(c), the trial court had sixty days, or until February 20, 2007,2 to modify Mr. Shafer’s sentence. Thus, Mr. Shafer filed his motion eleven days before the expiration of the sixty-day modification period.
On February 27, 2007, the trial court, relying on State v. Woodard, 866 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), dismissed Mr. Shafer’s motion, concluding that it “lost jurisdiction to rule on the motion on February 18, 2007.” The court explained, “As this court no longer has jurisdiction to rule on it, the instant motion must be dismissed.” Although the trial court did not have the benefit of our opinion at the time, we have since ruled otherwise. See Cunniff, 950 So. 2d at 1257. In Cunniff, we granted Mr. Cunniffs petition for writ of certiorari, holding that “the trial court should have either considered the motion on its merits or extended the time for considering the motion” when Mr. Cunniffs motion for mitigation of sentence was filed nine days before the expiration of the sixty-day modification period. Id. Because Mr. Shafer’s motion was filed eleven days before the expiration, Cunniff controls, and the trial court should have considered the merits of Mr. Shafer’s motion or extended the time to do so. Because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, we grant Mr. Shafer’s petition, quash the trial court’s order, and remand for the trial court to consider the merits of the motion.
Petition for writ of certiorari is granted.
DAVIS, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur. . In its order dismissing Mr. Shafer's motion, the trial court found that it lost jurisdiction to decide the motion on February 18, 2007. Because rule 3.800(c) permits only sixty days to modify a sentence, we presume that Mr. Shafer was sentenced on December 20, 2006— sixty days before February 18, 2007. This is also consistent with Mr. Shafer's assertion in his rule 3.800(c) motion that he was sentenced on December 20, 2006.
. February 18, 2007, was a Sunday, and February 19, 2007, was a legal holiday (Washington's Birthday); therefore, the sixty-day expiration was extended to February 20, 2007. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.040.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Woodard, 866 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Cunniff v. State, 950 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Pickens v. State, 920 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Byrd v. State, 920 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)