ARTHER COOPER, 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.
Cooper appealed the denial of a motion to reduce or suspend his sentence under Florida Statute § 921.186. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that orders denying such motions are not appealable because the decision to reduce or suspend sentence is within the trial court's discretion.
Orders denying motions filed pursuant to section 921.186 are not appealable because the decision to reduce or suspend sentence is entirely within the discretion of the trial court, similar to orders denying motions under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c).
[1] Orders denying motions filed pursuant to section 921.186, Florida Statutes, are not appealable.
[2] A decision to reduce or suspend a sentence under section 921.186, Florida Statutes, is addressed to the discretion of the trial court.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“An order on a motion filed pursuant to section 921.186 is similar to an order entered on a motion to reduce sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c), in that the decision to reduce or suspend is addressed to the discretion of the trial court.”
Establishes the analogy between § 921.186 motions and Rule 3.800(c) motions as discretionary matters
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCooper was convicted of a felony offense and filed a motion pursuant to section 921.186, Florida Statutes, seeking to reduce or suspend his sentence b…
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 Discretionary Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant appeals the denial of a motion to reduce or suspend sentence filed pursuant to section 921.186, Florida Statutes (2010). The state moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order is not appealable.1 We agree and dismiss the case.
Section 921.186, Florida Statutes (2010), reads:
Notwithstanding any other law, the state attorney may move the sentencing court to reduce or suspend the sentence of any person who is convicted of violating any felony offense and who provides substantial assistance in the identification, arrest, or conviction of any of that person’s accomplices, accessories, cocon-spirators, or principals or of any other person engaged in criminal activity that would constitute a felony. The arresting agency shall be given an opportunity to be heard in aggravation or mitigation in reference to any such motion. Upon good cause shown, the motion may be filed and heard in camera. The judge hearing the motion may reduce or suspend the sentence if the judge finds that the defendant rendered such substantial assistance, (emphasis added).
An order on a motion filed pursuant to section 921.186 is similar to an order entered on a motion to reduce sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c), in that the decision to reduce or suspend is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. Orders denying rule 3.800(c) motions are not ap-pealable because the decision to reduce a sentence in response to such a motion is entirely within the discretion of the trial court. See Daniels v. State, 568 So.2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (holding that, because a motion to reduce sentence was addressed to the discretion of the trial court, “this court ... has no jurisdiction to review the correctness of the trial court’s disposition of the motion”). Accordingly, we hold that orders denying motions filed pursuant to section 921.186, Florida Statutes, are not appealable. Because the trial court ruled on the merits of the motion we decline to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. *33Therefore, the Appellee’s motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed.
BENTON, C.J., DAVIS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Darrick L. McFADDEN v. State, 177 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 2015)…decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in McFadden v. State, 130 So. 3d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). The district court certified that its decision is in direct conflict with the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Cooper v. State, 106 So. 3d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Darrick McFadden also seeks review of McFadden, on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with Sanders v. State, 35 So. 3d 864 (Fla.2010), Sims v. State, 998 So. 2d 494 (Fla.2008), Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (F…
-
Darrick L. McFADDEN v. State, 130 So. 3d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…, Florida Statutes (2010), to reduce or suspend his sentence for providing substantial assistance. We affirm the trial court’s order without comment. In so affirming, however, we certify conflict with the First District’s opinion in Cooper v. State, 106 So. 3d 32, 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), which holds “that orders denying motions filed pursuant to section 921.186, Florida Statutes, are not appealable.” McFadden argues on appeal that the trial court erred because it based the denial upon the consideration of…
Authorities Cited
- PIA Psychiatric Hosps., Inc. v. State, 568 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)