Davis v. State, 99-1459.
| Decision Date | 22 November 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-1459.,99-1459. |
| Citation | 745 So.2d 499 |
| Parties | Lee A. DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appellant, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Appellant, Lee A. Davis, appeals the trial court's denial of his Motion to Reduce or Modify Sentence. The trial court denied the motion, holding it lacked jurisdiction because the motion was not filed within 60 days after Appellant was sentenced. We reverse.
A trial court's order denying, on the merits, a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) motion to mitigate sentence is not appealable. Mitchell v. State, 719 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). However, an appellate court may exercise its certiorari jurisdiction to review a case where the motion was denied for, among other reasons, lack of jurisdiction based on the motion's untimeliness. Brown v. State, 707 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Roauer v. State, 697 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
The record reveals Appellant timely filed a Motion to Enlarge Time, requesting an extension of time to March 25, 1999, in which to file a Motion for Modification or Reduction of Sentence. The trial court entered an order granting the motion and extended the time as requested. See Fla. R. Crim P. 3.050. Appellant filed his motion on March 24, 1999. Thus, the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion on the merits. Sullivan v. State, 677 So.2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The trial court's failure to do so constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. Moya v. State, 668 So.2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
REVERSED and REMANDED for consideration of Appellant's motion on the merits.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. State, 5D04-4040.
...been granted where the trial court procedurally erred, such as by denying an order on the basis it was untimely. See Davis v. State, 745 So.2d 499, 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Roauer v. State, 697 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Arnold v. State, 621 So.2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA DISMISSED. PLEUS, C.J......
-
Lancaster v. State, 2D02-2247.
...Lancaster's motion on the merits was a departure from the essential requirements of law. See Moya, 668 So.2d 279; Davis v. State, 745 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Therefore, we treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, grant the petition, and quash the order dismissing Lanca......
-
Riggs v. State, 1D02-0245.
...for modification/reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction. See Jolly v. State, 803 So.2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Davis v. State, 745 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Roauer v. State, 697 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). However, Petitioner has not met the rigid standard of certiorari review......
-
WINSLOW v. State Of Fla., 1D10-1555
...Jones v. State, 28 So. 3d 981 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Additionally, an order on a 3.800(c) motion is not appealable. Davis v. State, 745 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Daniels v. State, 568 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the orders on appeal. ...