KYLE B. COKER, 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.
Kyle Coker sought a writ of certiorari to challenge the trial court's denial of his motion for sentence reduction under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). The appellate court held that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by denying the motion based on lack of jurisdiction when the motion was timely filed within sixty days of the appellate court's order dismissing his direct appeal.
The trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion because Coker timely filed it within sixty days of the appellate court's order dismissing his direct appeal. The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by denying the motion without considering its merits based on an erroneous jurisdictional determination.
[1] A trial court has jurisdiction to consider a motion for reduction or modification of sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) within sixty d…
[2] Denying a motion for reduction or modification of sentence based solely on the erroneous belief that the court lacks jurisdiction constitutes a departure from the essenti…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by denying Petitioner's motion based on its finding that sixty days had elapsed since his sentencing and its conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion”
Identifies the trial court's error in measuring the sixty-day deadline from sentencing rather than from the appellate court's order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCoker filed a motion for reduction or modification of sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). The trial court denied the mot…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(C) cases and more on FLexlaw
In his petition for writ of certiorari, Petitioner, Kyle B. Coker, challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion for reduction or modification of sentence, which he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). As the State concedes, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by denying Petitioner’s motion based on its finding that sixty days had elapsed since his sentencing and its conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. As Petitioner argues, the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion because he timely filed it within sixty days of this Court’s order dismissing his direct appeal. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(c) (providing in part 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 60 days after receipt by the court of a certified copy of an order of the appellate court dismissing an original appeal from the judgment and/or sentence”); see also Brander v. State, 996 So.2d 255, 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (granting the petition for writ of certiorari upon holding that the trial court’s failure to consider the merits of the petitioner’s rule 3.800(c) motion on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction constituted a departure from the essential requirements of the law because the motion was timely filed within sixty days of this Court’s mandate); Atkins v. State, 851 So.2d 829, 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law where, pursuant to the mailbox rule, the petitioner timely filed his rule *4313.800(c) motion within sixty days of this Court’s issuance of a mandate on his direct appeal).
Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for writ of certiorari, QUASH the trial court’s order, and REMAND for consideration of the motion on the merits.
LEWIS, C.J., THOMAS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. State, 176 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…rder was issued deeming the motion denied, the trial court still had jurisdiction to consider the motion on the merits, and the procedural error causing its failure to do so was a departure from the essential requirements of law. See Coker v. State, 139 So. 3d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Brander v. State, 996 So. 2d 255, 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Davis v. State, 745 So. 2d 499, 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for writ of certiorari, QUASH the trial court’s order, and REMAND for consi…
Authorities Cited
- Terence C. Atkins v. State, 851 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Tims v. State, 996 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)