JAMES G. EBERHEART, 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 court held that a motion to mitigate a sentence filed within sixty days of an appellate mandate is timely, even if filed more than sixty days after the original sentencing.
Petitioner filed a motion to mitigate his sentence 274 days after sentencing. The circuit court denied the motion as untimely. Petitioner had directly…
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 Mandate Of Appellate Court cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks certiorari review of a circuit court order which denied his rule 3.800(c) motion to mitigate his sentence as untimely. The circuit court noted that petitioner was sentenced on February 12, 2008, but did not file his 3.800(c) motion to mitigate sentence until November 13, 2008, 274 days later. The court, therefore, ruled that it was without jurisdiction to entertain the motion. We grant the writ.
The circuit court overlooked the fact that petitioner directly appealed his sentence and this Court affirmed on October 7, 2008. See Eberheart v. State, 992 So.2d 270 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). The mandate issued on October 24, 2008. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) provides that a court may reduce or modify a sentence within sixty days after its imposition, or within sixty days after receipt by the court of a mandate issued by the appellate court on affirmance of the judgment and/or sentence. Petitioner’s 3.800(c) motion was filed within sixty days of our mandate.
Although a defendant may not appeal an order denying a rule 3.800(c) motion to mitigate or modify a sentence where the motion was considered on the merits,1 cer-tiorari review is available if the trial court determines that it lacks jurisdiction to rule on the rule 3.800(c) motion. See Davis v. State, 745 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Evans v. State, 691 So.2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
In response to this Court’s show cause order, the state concedes that the circuit court had jurisdiction to consider the motion to mitigate sentence on the merits. We, therefore, grant the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the order and remand for further proceedings. See Ukaj v. State, 969 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).
WRIT GRANTED, ORDER QUASHED.
PALMER, C.J., GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Graham v. State, 24 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…er is not appealable when decided on the merits. Adams v. State, 800 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). However, when the basis for denial was a lack of jurisdiction, certiorari is proper for purposes of challenging that ruling. See Eberheart v. State, 5 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Ukaj v. State, 969 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Wills v. State, 963 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Del Valle [*783] v. State, 948 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Arnold v. State, 621 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Thus, we…
-
Wilkins v. State, 28 So. 3d 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…COHEN, J. Joseph Wilkins appeals an order dismissing his motion to mitigate his sentence as untimely. We treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, see Eberheart v. State, 5 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), grant the petition, and quash the order. Wilkins was sentenced on August 6, 2009, to eighteen months in the Department of Corrections for cultivating cannabis and possession with intent to sell or deliver cannabis. Forty-nine…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 745 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Adams v. State, 800 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Marcellus Evans v. State, 691 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Kmata Ukaj v. State, 969 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)