MICHAEL K. EDWARDS, APPELLANT,
v.
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 dismissed an appeal of a trial court's order denying a motion to mitigate sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c), holding that such orders are not appealable regardless of boilerplate language suggesting appellate rights.
Orders denying motions to mitigate sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) are not appealable, and boilerplate language granting thirty days to appeal does not render them appealable.
[1] Orders denying motions to mitigate sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) are not appealable, and boilerplate language suggesting appellate rights doe…
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 intelligence“The inclusion of such language serves no purpose except to foster unnecessary appeals.”
The court noted that boilerplate appellate language in rule 3.800(c) orders serves no legitimate purpose and encourages inmates to file meritless appeals.
Edwards sought review of a trial court order denying his motion to mitigate his sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). The …
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
Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to mitigate his sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). This is not an appealable order. See, e.g., Mitchell v. State, 719 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The fact that the order included the statement that “[t]he Defendant shall have thirty (30) days from the date this Order is filed to take an appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of Court” does not transform the order into an ap-pealable order. See Falco v. State, 44 So.3d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). This boilerplate language is required in orders on other types of postconviction motions, but it should not be included in orders on rule 3.800(c) motions. See Howard v. State, 914 So.2d 455, 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); see also Barrington v. State, 46 So.3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (Wetherell, J., concurring) (noting that the “inclusion of such language serves no purpose except to foster unnecessary appeals” and that “there is certainly no reason to suggest to an inmate that he or she has appellate rights in an order that is clearly not appealable”). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and we also take this opportunity to encourage the trial courts of this district to excise language concerning appellate rights from their orders on rule 3.800(c) motions.
DISMISSED.
DAVIS, HAWKES and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mitchell v. State, 719 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Johnson v. State, 44 So. 3d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Lowery v. State, 914 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Marylynn Falco v. State, 44 So. 3d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Barrington v. State, 46 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)