STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ANÍBAL SOTTO AND JOAQUIN A. AMOR, RESPONDENTS
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.
The State sought review of a trial court's order reducing the defendants' three-year prison sentences for lottery violations to five years probation. The appellate court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the sentences because the modification occurred more than sixty days after the Florida Supreme Court denied certiorari, violating Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.800(b).
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the sentences because Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.800(b) limits a trial court's authority to reduce sentences to within sixty days after imposition or within sixty days after the appellate court's final order. Additionally, a trial court lacks authority to vacate legal sentences and substitute probation.
[1] A trial court may reduce a legal sentence within sixty days after imposition or within sixty days after the highest state or federal court has entered an order of affirma…
[2] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to mitigate a legal sentence after the sixty-day period for reduction has elapsed.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 trial court pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(b) may reduce a legal sentence at any time within sixty days after the imposition of sentence or within sixty days after the highest state or federal court, to which a timely appeal or petition for writ of certiorari has been taken, has entered an order of affirmance, an order dismissing the appeal or an order denying certiorari.”
Establishes the strict jurisdictional requirements and time limits for trial court authority to modify sentences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants Sotto and Amor were convicted of lottery law violations and sentenced to three years in prison. They appealed and sought certiorari in the …
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 Petition For Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
HUBBART, Judge.
The state petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review orders of a trial court which mitigated a three year prison sentence imposed upon the defendants for various lottery law violations. The trial court vacated the defendants’ prison sentences and placed the defendants on five years probation. The trial court’s mitigation orders were entered more than sixty days after the denial of certiorari by the Florida Supreme Court upon review of the defendants’ convictions.
The law is clear that a trial court pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(b) may reduce a legal sentence at any time within sixty days after the imposition of sentence or within sixty days after the highest state or federal court, to which a timely appeal or petition for writ of certiorari has been taken, has entered an order of affirmance, an order dismissing the appeal or an order denying certiorari. A trial court lacks the jurisdiction to mitigate a legal sentence after 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 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), cert. den. 229 So. 2d 261 (Fla.1969), cert. den. 397 U.S. 1053, 90 S.Ct. 1393, 25 L.Ed.2d 668 (1970).
The orders under review are quashed because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter them. The sixty day time periods under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(b) had elapsed at the time the mitigation orders were entered. Since this is a jurisdictional matter, we must of necessity reject the defendants’ contentions which seek to excuse the trial court’s delay in mitigating the sentences. Moreover, the mitigation orders are further invalid because they do not reduce legal sentences; they vacate the sentences and place the defendants on probation.
The state’s petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the orders vacating the defendants’ sentences and placing the defendants on five years probation are quashed, and the original three year sentences imposed on the defendants are reinstated with credit given for any time served. The cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Gregorio Rodriguez v. State, 441 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…xt to the question of jurisdiction, I again disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the issue involved is only that of double jeopardy. Courts retain jurisdiction to reduce or to mitigate a sentence for a limited period of time, State v. Sotto, 348 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1219 (Fla.1978); State v. Evans, 225 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 229 So. 2d 261 (Fla.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1053, 90 S.Ct. 1393, 25 L.Ed.2d 668 (1970); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800, and only for…
-
Grosse v. State, 511 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…enied, 366 So. 2d 885 (Fla.1978); Sayer v. State, 267 So. 2d 42 [*689] (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Wilson v. State, 487 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 496 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1986); State v. Mancil, 354 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); State v. Sotto, 348 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1219 (Fla.1978). Appellant contends that he has suffered an injustice, as it was not his fault that his motion sat in the court file while the time period expired. However, not only was it his responsib…
-
State v. Smith, 360 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…correctly concluded that the trial court proceeded without jurisdiction”. The appellate courts of Florida have consistently held that the limitation of time provided in R.Crim.P. 3.800(b) for reduction of sentence is jurisdictional. State v. Sotto, 348 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977); Collins v. State, 343 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977); Moss v. State, 330 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Sayer v. State, 267 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Ware v. State, 231 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1970). We address ourselves…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- State v. Evans, 225 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Evans v. State, 229 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1969)
- Ware v. State, 231 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Sayer v. State, 267 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Ponce v. California, 397 U.S. 1053 (U.S. 1970)
- Primous v. United States, 397 U.S. 1053 (U.S. 1970)
- Smith v. State, 289 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- State v. Buster Dean Brown, 308 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Moss v. State, 330 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Jefferson v. State, 320 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)