DARRICK L. MCFADDEN, 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.
McFadden appeals the trial court's denial of the State's motion to reduce his sentence for substantial assistance under Florida Statute 921.186. The appellate court affirms the denial while certifying conflict with the First District Court of Appeal regarding whether such orders are appealable.
The court affirms the trial court's order denying the sentence reduction motion. Although the decision to grant or deny such a motion falls within the trial court's discretion, appellate courts have jurisdiction to review orders denying section 921.186 motions where the defendant alleges the trial court misapplied the statute.
[1] An appellate court has jurisdiction to review a trial court's order denying a motion to reduce or suspend a sentence for substantial assistance when the defendant alleges…
[2] Orders denying motions filed pursuant to section 921.186, Florida Statutes, are appealable when the defendant alleges the trial court misapplied the statute.
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“though we agree with the First District that the decision to reduce or suspend a defendant's sentence falls squarely within the discretion of the trial court, see Cooper, 106 So. 3d at 32, we nonetheless hold that we have jurisdiction to review a trial court's order denying a motion filed pursuant to section 921.186 where the defendant alleges, as McFadden has here, that the trial court misapplied the statute”
Establishes the court's holding that appellate jurisdiction exists to review discretionary sentencing decisions when the defendant challenges the legal application of the statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcFadden was denied a sentence reduction motion filed by the State pursuant to section 921.186, Florida Statutes, which permits reduction or suspensio…
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 Discretion Of Trial Court cases and more on FLexlaw
Darrick L. McFadden appeals the trial court’s order denying the State’s motion filed pursuant to section 921.186, 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 improper factors. Though we agree with the First District that the decision to reduce or suspend a defendant’s sentence falls squarely within the discretion of the trial court, see Cooper, 106 So.3d at 32, we nonetheless hold that we have jurisdiction to review a trial court’s order denying a motion filed pursuant to section 921.186 where the defendant alleges, as McFadden has here, that the trial court misapplied the statute. See United States v. Manella, 86 F.3d 201, 203 (11th Cir.1996) (holding that although the lower court’s decision to grant or deny the government’s motion to reduce the defendant’s sentence for providing substantial assistance “is a discretionary one from which an appeal generally will not lie,” the appellate court’s exercise of jurisdiction to review the order is proper where the defendant has alleged a misapplication of the law).
To the extent that Cooper holds that an order denying a motion filed pursuant to section 921.186 is never appealable, we certify conflict.
Affirmed; conflict certified.
DAVIS, C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Darrick L. McFADDEN v. State, 177 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 2015)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Manella, 86 F.3d 201 (11th Cir. 1996)
- Arther Cooper v. State, 106 So. 3d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)