MATTHEW R. HERNANDEZ, 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.
An order denying a motion to reduce or mitigate a sentence is not appealable, and the appeal will be treated as a petition for writ of certiorari which is denied.
Matthew Hernandez was sentenced on January 10, 2012, and did not appeal. He later filed a motion to modify his sentence on August 21, 2012. The trial …
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 Jurisdictional Time Limits cases and more on FLexlaw
Matthew Hernandez appeals an order denying his motion to modify or reduce his sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). As an order denying a motion to reduce or mitigate a sentence is not appealable, see, e.g., Diaz v. State, 931 So.2d 1002, 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), we treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, see Iglesias v. State, 76 So.3d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and deny the petition.
Rule 3.800(c) allows for a reduction or modification of “a legal sentence imposed by [the court] within 60 days after the imposition....” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(c).
Hernandez was sentenced on January 10, 2012. No appeal was taken from the judgment or sentence. Hernandez filed the instant motion to modify his sentence on August 21, 2012. The trial court properly denied Hernandez’s motion as untimely because it was filed more than sixty days from the date his sentence was imposed and the sixty-day requirement of Rule 3.800(c) is jurisdictional. E.g., State v. Woodard, 866 So.2d 120, 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montesino v. State, 231 So. 3d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…Id. “[T]he sixty-day requirement of Rule 3.800(c) is jurisdictional,” and “[t]he trial court properly denie[s] [a defendant’s] motion as untimely [where] it was filed more than sixty days from the date his sentence was imposed.” Hernandez v. State, 109 So. 3d 865, 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Here, Montesino pleaded guilty and was sentenced to eight years imprisonment on November 16, 2015. His motion for modification of sentence was put in the prison mailbox on February 17, 2017. Given the fifteen month gap betw…
-
Kirkconnell v. State, 309 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…“[T]he sixty-day requirement of Rule 3.800(c) is jurisdictional,” and “[t]he trial court properly denie[s] [a defendant’s] motion as untimely [where] it was filed more than sixty days from the date his sentence was imposed.” Hernandez v. State, 109 So. 3d 865, 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Berki v. State, 298 So. 3d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (dismissing the appeal, as the lower tribunal's order denying, on the merits, a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) motion to mitigate sentence is not an appealab…1 / 2
-
Lee v. State, 425 So. 3d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…ired to file his motion to reduce or modify sentence no later than January 8, 2022. Lee filed his motion on September 18, 2023, more than eighteen months later. The sixty-day requirement is considered a “jurisdictional” defect, Hernandez v. State, 109 So. 3d 865, 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (citing State v. Woodard, 866 So. 2d 120, 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)), leaving the trial court without continuing jurisdiction (also referred to as “case jurisdiction” or “procedural jurisdiction”)2 to consider the merits of a m…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Woodard, 866 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Diaz v. State, 931 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Norberto Iglesias v. State, 76 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)