SYLVIA MATHIS, 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 appellate court granted certiorari and quashed the trial court's order denying a sentence modification motion because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to act before the appellate mandate had issued.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a motion to reduce or modify sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) until the appellate mandate has been issued.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a motion to reduce or modify sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) until the appellate mandate has been…
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 intelligenceThe appellate court issued an opinion in May 2006 granting certiorari and ordering the trial court to consider the merits of a sentence modification m…
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 Reduce Or Modify Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On May 4, 2006, this Court issued an opinion in case 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 trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider the 3.800(c) motion. Cf. Brooks v. State, 937 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (because mandate had not issued, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to resentence Brooks); State v. Miyasato, 805 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (mandate functions to end the jurisdiction of the appellate court and to return full jurisdiction of the case to the trial court); Washington v. State, 637 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (the judgment of an appellate court becomes final upon the issuance of a mandate). Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court’s May 16, 2007, order denying petitioner’s motions to reduce sentence. We remand for the trial court to enter an order on the merits of the petitioner’s motions to correct or modify sentence after mandate issues and jurisdiction returns to the trial court.
Petition for writ of certiorari GRANTED.
DAVIS and POLSTON, JJ., and LAWRENCE, JR., L. ARTHUR, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montre D. Richardson v. State, 257 So. 3d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Touchton-Williams v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Miyasato, 805 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Washington v. State, 637 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Errol D. Brooks v. State, 937 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Mathis v. State, 957 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)