JOSHUA POWELL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that a motion to mitigate sentence was untimely because the prior appellate decision reviewed post-conviction motions, not an original appeal.
Joshua Powell filed a motion to mitigate sentence, claiming it was timely under Rule 3.800(c) because it was filed within 60 days of a prior appellate…
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 Timeliness Of Postconviction Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joshua Powell, pro se, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to mitigate sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. The trial court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction, noting that it was filed November 15, 2007, over sixty days after Powell was sentenced.
Under Rule 3.800(c), a motion to mitigate sentence is also timely if filed “within 60 days after receipt by the court of a mandate issued by the appellate court on affirmance of the judgment and/or sentence on an original appeal.” In this ease, Powell claims this Court’s mandate in a prior appeal, Powell v. State, 963 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), was entered October 12, 2007, such that his motion was timely.
However, the prior case in this Court referred to by Powell was not an original appeal from the judgment or sentence. Rather, that case reviewed the denial of other post-conviction motions by Powell. As a result, the trial court correctly held that Powell’s 2007 motion to mitigate was untimely.
Affirmed.