GIANNETTA BAILEY, 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.
Bailey seeks certiorari review of a circuit court order dismissing her motion to reduce or modify sentence as untimely. The appellate court held that the mailbox rule applies to Rule 3.800(c) motions, so Bailey's motion was timely because she delivered it to prison officials before the 60-day deadline expired, even though the court did not receive it until after the deadline.
The mailbox rule applies to Rule 3.800(c) motions, so a motion is considered filed when entrusted to prison officials for delivery, not when the court receives it. Because Bailey delivered her motion to prison officials on March 3, 2013, before the March 4, 2013 deadline, the motion was timely filed.
[1] A circuit court departs from the essential requirements of law when it dismisses a timely motion to reduce or modify sentence under Rule 3.800(c) without considering its…
[2] The mailbox rule applies to motions filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c), deeming a motion filed when entrusted to prison officials for delivery.
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 for reviewing dismissals of Rule 3.800(c) motions on timeliness grounds
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBailey's sentence was entered on January 3, 2013, giving her until March 4, 2013 to file a motion to reduce or modify sentence under Florida Rule of C…
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 Departure From Essential Requirements Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Giannetta Bailey seeks certiorari review of a circuit court order dismissing as untimely her motion to reduce or modify sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). Because the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law in dismissing Ms. Bailey’s motion as untimely, we grant the petition, quash the circuit court’s order, and remand for consideration of Ms. Bailey’s motion on its merits.
Rule 3.800(c) provides that “[a] court may reduce or modify to include any of the provisions of chapter 948, Florida Statutes, a legal sentence imposed by it, sua sponte, or upon motion filed, within [sixty] days after the imposition.” Ms. Bailey’s sentence was entered on January 3, 2013. Accordingly, Ms. Bailey’s sixty-day time period in which to file her rule 3.800(c) motion expired on March 4, 2013. Ms. Bailey’s motion reflects that it was placed in the hands of prison officials on March 3, 2013. The circuit court did not receive the motion, however, until March 6, 2013. As *616a result, the circuit court dismissed the motion, concluding that it was filed after the sixty-day time limit imposed under rule 3.800(c).
An order dismissing a rule 3.800 motion as untimely is reviewable under this court’s certiorari jurisdiction. 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 prison officials for further delivery or processing. See Lawson v. State, 107 So.3d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).
Because Ms. Bailey delivered her rule 3.800(c) motion to prison officials before the sixty-day period expired, it was timely filed under the mailbox rule. Kwapil, 44 So.3d at 230. Ergo, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law in failing to consider the timely filed motion on its merits.1 Thus, we grant Ms. Bailey’s petition, quash the circuit court’s order dismissing her motion as untimely, and remand for the circuit court to consider Ms. Bailey’s rule 3.800(c) motion on its merits.
Petition granted; order quashed; remanded.
NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Conrad v. State, 148 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…tion to reduce or modify sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) as untimely. Because such an order is not appealable, we treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, and we grant the petition. See Bailey v. State, 136 So. 3d 615, 616 (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. Sta…
-
La Tissha M. Johnson v. State, 243 So. 3d 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…ed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). The trial court dismissed the motion as untimely. However, the motion was filed within sixty days of the date that this Court issued the mandates in her direct appeals. See Bailey v. State, 136 So. 3d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“[A] rule 3.800(c) motion is considered filed when entrusted to prison officials for further delivery or processing.”). As the State concedes, the motion was timely filed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(c). The trial court’s fai…
Authorities Cited
- Childers v. State, 972 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Kwapil v. State, 44 So. 3d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Lawson v. State, 107 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Velazquez v. State, 917 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Carwin Pettis v. State, 917 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)