MATTHEW KWAPIL, 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.
Matthew Kwapil sought certiorari review of a circuit court order dismissing his motion to mitigate sentence as untimely under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). The Second District Court of Appeal held that the motion was timely filed under the mailbox rule because Kwapil delivered it to prison officials within the 60-day deadline, and thus the circuit court erred in dismissing it without considering its merits.
The court held that the mailbox rule applies to Rule 3.800(c) motions, so Kwapil's motion was timely filed when delivered to prison officials on December 24, 2009, within the 60-day period. The 60-day period is not jurisdictional, and the circuit court erred in dismissing the motion without considering its merits.
[1] A circuit court order dismissing a motion to mitigate sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) as untimely may be reviewed by petition for w…
[2] A circuit court departs from the essential requirements of the law when it dismisses a timely Rule 3.800(c) motion without considering its merits.
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“A circuit court departs from the essential requirements of the law when it dismisses a timely rule 3.800(c) motion without considering the merits of the motion.”
Establishes the legal standard that dismissing a timely motion without considering its merits constitutes an error of law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKwapil was sentenced on October 29, 2009, with no direct appeal filed. The 60-day period to file a Rule 3.800(c) motion to reduce sentence expired on …
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 Mitigate Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Matthew Kwapil seeks certiorari review of a circuit court order dismissing as untimely his motion to mitigate sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). We conclude that the circuit court should have considered the merits of Kwapil’s motion because it was timely filed under the mailbox rule.
Rule 3.800(c) provides that where no direct appeal has been filed, a court “may reduce or modify ... a legal sentence imposed by it within [sixty] days after the imposition.” Kwapil was sentenced on October 29, 2009, and no direct appeal was filed. The sixty-day time period under rule 3.800(c) expired on December 28, 2009. Kwapil provided his rule 3.800(c) motion to prison officials on December 24, 2009, but the circuit court did not receive the motion until December 31, 2009. The *230circuit court dismissed the motion as untimely, citing Brantley v. Holloway, 685 So.2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), and stating that the sixty-day time period under rule 8.800(c) is jurisdictional; jurisdiction had been lost by the time the motion was received by the court, and no motion for extension had been made.
A circuit court order dismissing a rule 3.800(c) motion as untimely may be reviewed by petition for writ of certiorari in the district court. Velazquez v. State, 917 So.2d 306, 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). A circuit court departs from the essential requirements of the law when it dismisses a timely rule 3.800(c) motion without considering the merits of the motion. See, e.g., Lancaster v. State, 821 So.2d 416, 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Atkins v. State, 851 So.2d 829, 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). This court has applied the mailbox rule to rule 3.800(c) motions and has considered those motions filed when provided to prison officials. See Childers v. State, 972 So.2d 307, 308 (Fla.2d DCA 2008); McCormick v. State, 961 So.2d 1099, 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Cunniff v. State, 950 So.2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The First District has also applied the mailbox rule to a rule 3.800(c) motion. See Atkins, 851 So.2d at 829.
We recognize that in Brantley, 685 So.2d at 32, this court declined to decide whether the mailbox rule applied to the filing of a motion to reduce sentence. However, since Brantley, this court has applied the mailbox rule to the filing of such motions. See Childers, 972 So.2d at 308; McCormick, 961 So.2d at 1101; Cunniff, 950 So.2d at 1256. And the supreme court has rejected the argument that rule 3.800(c) is jurisdictional. See Schlabach v. State, 37 So.3d 230, 237 (Fla.2010) (“The position that the sixty-day time limit is jurisdictional is ... contrary to this Court’s decision in Abren [v. State, 660 So.2d 703 (Fla.1995) ].”). “[A] trial court does not lose jurisdiction to modify a sentence when the motion is filed within the sixty-day time period as long as the trial court rules on the motion within a reasonable time.” Id. at 239. Because Kwapil provided his rule 3.800(c) motion to prison officials before the sixty days expired, it was timely filed under the mailbox rule. See Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614, 617 (Fla.1992). The circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law in failing to consider the timely filed motion on its merits. Accordingly, we grant Kwapil’s petition, quash the order of dismissal, and remand for the circuit court to consider the merits of Kwapil’s rule 3.800(c) motion. Petition granted; order quashed; remanded.
DAVIS and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spaulding v. State, 93 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…o. 2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968).2 The appellate courts, however, have recognized that some trial court errors that occur when considering rule 3.800(c) motions may be reviewed by peti [*475] tion for writ of common law certiorari. See Kwapil v. State, 44 So. 3d 229, 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Moya v. State, 668 So. 2d 279, 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). These motions are subject to the trial court’s discretion. See Schlabach v. State, 37 So. 3d 230, 237 (Fla.2010). In part because the ruling on 3.800(c) motions is discr…
-
Giannetta Bailey v. State, 136 So. 3d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…tion. See Velazquez v. State, 917 So. 2d 306, 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). “A circuit court departs from the essential requirements of the law when it dismisses a timely rule 3.800(c) motion without considering the merits of the motion.” Kwapil v. State, 44 So. 3d 229, 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). The mailbox rule applies to motions filed in accordance with rule 3.800(c). See id.; see also Childers v. State, 972 So. 2d 307, 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Thus, a rule 3.800(c) motion is considered filed when entrusted to pri…
-
Conrad v. State, 148 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…6 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). The law is well settled that a circuit court departs from the essential requirements of law when it dismisses a timely rule 3.800(c) motion without considering the merits of the motion. See, e.g., id. at 616; Kwapil v. State, 44 So. 3d 229, 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); McPherson v. State, 139 So. 3d 478, 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). As the sixtieth day following the imposition of her sentence was Saturday, August 24, 2013, Conrad’s motion was timely filed when she placed it in the hands of pri…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- State v. Thurston McCLAIN, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Bruno Abreu v. State, 660 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1995)
- Schlabach v. State, 37 So. 3d 230 (Fla. 2010)
- Lancaster v. State, 821 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Childers v. State, 972 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- McCORMICK v. State, 961 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Terence C. Atkins v. State, 851 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Cunniff v. State, 950 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Velazquez v. State, 917 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)