TERESA ANN TAYLOR, 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.
Trial court erred by denying a Rule 3.800(c) motion to reduce sentence based on an erroneous time calculation when the court still had jurisdiction to consider the motion on the merits.
A trial court's denial of a Rule 3.800(c) motion based on erroneous calculation of the ninety-day deadline constitutes a departure from essential requirements of law warranting certiorari relief.
[1] A trial court's denial of a Rule 3.800(c) motion based on erroneous calculation of the ninety-day filing deadline constitutes a departure from essential requirements of l…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“denial 'based on an erroneous calculation of time is one of the limited bases on which certiorari relief is available for rulings on motions to modify or reduce sentences.'”
Court explaining the exception to the general rule that 3.800(c) denials are not appealable
Taylor filed a timely motion to reduce sentence within sixty days of sentencing, but the trial court denied it based on a finding that ninety days had…
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 Judicial Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, Teresa Ann Taylor, challenges the trial court’s order denying her motion to reduce sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). As the State properly concedes, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by deeming Petitioner’s motion denied based on the finding that more than ninety days had elapsed since filing when only sixteen days had elapsed.
While a denial on the merits of a 3.800(c) motion is not appealable, denial “based on an erroneous calculation of time is one of the limited bases on which certiorari relief is available for rulings on motions to modify or reduce sentences.” Formolo v. State, 130 So.3d 749, 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (citing Lancaster v. State, 821 So.2d 416, 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). Because Petitioner timely filed the motion within sixty days of the imposition of her sentence, the *1286trial court had ninety days from the date of filing to rule on the motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(c). At the time the trial court’s order 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 consideration of the motion on the merits.
BENTON, ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 745 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Lancaster v. State, 821 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Tims v. State, 996 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Nova Formolo v. State, 130 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Coker v. State, 139 So. 3d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)