STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
BUSTER DEAN BROWN, RESPONDENT

Fla. 1st DCA | 1975-03-05
No. V-460
McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.
308 So. 2d 655 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1975) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases

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.


Holding

A circuit court lacks jurisdiction to reduce a sentence if the order is not issued during the same term of court as the original sentence, and the term exceeds sixty days.


Headnotes

[1] A court may reduce a legal sentence imposed by it at the same term of court at which it has been imposed, or if such term ends less than sixty days after the imposition o…

[2] Rule 3.040, RCrP, which extends deadlines falling on weekends or holidays, is inapplicable to statutory time periods set by specific dates.

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

Facts & Procedural History

Respondent pleaded guilty and received a sentence, which the trial court later reduced. The State petitioned for certiorari, arguing the reduction ord…

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.


Opinion of the Court
BOYER, Acting Chief Judge.

BOYER, Acting Chief Judge.

We here consider whether a Circuit Court has jurisdiction to modify the respondent’s judgment and sentence. Respondent originally received a 10 month sentence on December 14, 1973, after pleading guilty to Count I of an information charging him with obtaining or attempting to obtain a narcotic drug or alteration. At the time the respondent entered his guilty plea, the State entered a nolle prosequi as to Count II of the information which charged the respondent with uttering a forged prescription. Respondent thereafter moved for a reduction of sentence which, although opposed by the State, was granted by an order of the trial court on April 8, 1974. That order reduced the respondent’s 10 month sentence to a term of 114 days. The State then filed its petition for writ of certiorari to review the lower court’s order of corrected judgment and sentence.

The State asserts that an order of corrected judgment and sentence must be made pursuant to Rule 3.800(b), RCrP which reads as follows :

“A court may reduce a legal sentence imposed by it at the same term of court at which it has been imposed, or if such term ends less than sixty days after the imposition of the sentence, then within sixty days after such imposition 1

The record reveals that the original sentence was imposed during the fall term of the Circuit Court of Volusia County. By statute, the fall term of the Volusia County Circuit Court begins on the third Monday of October while the spring term begins on the second Monday in April. (F.S. 26.28) Uncomplicated computations disclose that the period of time between the imposition of the original sentence (December 14, 1973) and the conclusion of the fall term of court at which the original sentence was imposed exceeds 60 days: Therefore, in order for the order of corrected judgment and sentence to be valid, it must have been issued at the same term of court at which the original sentence was imposed.

The State argues that since the spring term of court began on April 8, 1974 (i. e. the second Monday in April), the fall term of court necessarily ended at midnight on the night of April 7, 1974. Therefore, according to the State, the April 8, 1974, order of the trial court could not have been issued at the same term of court at which the original sentence was imposed and is consequently invalid.

Respondent readily concedes that had April 7, 1974 fallen on a weekday, the order here in question would be void for lack of jurisdiction. However, respondent cites Rule 3.040, RCrP which provides in part, that “the last day of the period so computed shall be counted, unless it is Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, in which event the period shall run until the end of the next day, which is neither a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday . . .”, arguing that since April 7, 1974 fell on a Sunday, the order of corrected judgment and sentence entered the very-next Monday morning was valid.

We are of the opinion that Rule 3.-040 RCrP is inapplicable to statutory time periods set by specific dates contained within a statute. To hold otherwise would mean that two terms of court and two grand jurys would always be in existence on the first day of each term of court, which always commences on a Monday. Such is not the intent of the rule. The rule was intended, for example, to extend a 30 or 60 day period (or any other such period of a fixed number of days) which does not begin or end on any particular date, where the last day of the period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. It can hardly be gainsaid that the rule was not intended to apply to a period of time which begins and ends on specified dates and is immediately followed by a similarly defined period.

In summary, the fall term of court for the Circuit Court of Volusia County ended at midnight on Sunday, April 7, 1974, and the spring term began, as provided by statute, on Monday morning, April 8, 1974. (We note in passing that this conclusion is supported by the heading of the “Corrected Judgment and Sentence”, entered by the lower court on April 8, 1974. That heading originally contained the designation “Fall Term, 1974”, but the word “Fall” was crossed out and the word “Spring” substituted.)

We hold, therefore, that because the order of corrected judgment and sentence was not issued during the same term of court in which the original sentence was imposed (the term of court ending more than 60 days after imposition of the sentence sought to be reduced), the trial court was without jurisdiction to reduce the sentence. Accordingly, the order of corrected judgment and sentence is reversed.

Reversed.

McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur. . The portions of Rule 3.800(b) not quoted above are inapplicable to the case sub judice because the respondent did not directly appeal the original judgment and sentence.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Aníbal Sotto and Joaquin A. Amor, 348 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
    …the above sixty day periods have elapsed or to mitigate a legal sentence by vacating it and placing the defendant on probation. Moss v. State, 330 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); State v. Rodriguez, 326 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); State v. Brown, 308 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Smith v. State, 289 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Sayer v. State, 267 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Ware v. State, 231 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Jefferson v. State, 320 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); State v. Evans, 225…
  • Colonnades, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Commerce, 357 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
    …of a prescribed period falling on a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday. (But see Fox v. South Florida Regional Planning Council, supra, and cases therein cited; Stockslager v. Daly Aluminum Products, Inc., 246 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1971); State v. Brown, 308 So. 2d 655 (Fla.App. 1 1975); Mick v. Florida State Bd. of Dentistry, 338 So. 2d 1297 (Fla.App. 1 1976); Greer v. Estate of Smith, 342 So. 2d 1007 (Fla.App. 4 1977), and Ludwig v. Glover, 357 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).) In summary, we hold, as we at leas…
  • State v. Rodriguez, 326 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
    …ate [see: Rule 3.-800(b) RCrP], the court lost jurisdiction to mitigate a sentence. State v. Evans, Fla.App.1969, 225 So. 2d 548; Ware v. State, Fla.App.1970, 231 So. 2d 872; Sayer v. State, Fla.App.1972, 267 So. 2d 42; State v. Brown, Fla.App.1975, 308 So. 2d 655. It is also apparent that the term of court, in which the original sentence had been entered, had expired and the court was in a new term; therefore, it lacked the power to mitigate the sentence. Compare Troupe v. Rowe, Fla.1973, 283 So. 2d 857; Jon…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw