EDSEL I. DEL VALLE, 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.
The trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion to mitigate sentence, and its denial based on untimeliness was an error reviewable by certiorari.
[1] An order denying a motion to mitigate sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) based on a mistaken belief of untimeliness is reviewable by c…
[2] A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law when it improperly denies a motion to mitigate sentence as untimely.
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 intelligencePetitioner filed a motion to mitigate sentence under Rule 3.800(c) within 60 days of the appellate court's mandate affirming his judgment and sentence…
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 Motion To Mitigate Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Edsel I. Del Valle seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to mitigate sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). The trial court denied the motion as untimely because it was not filed within sixty days after imposition of sentence implying that it had no jurisdiction to review the motion. We hold the trial court had jurisdiction, grant the petition for writ of certiorari, and remand for consideration on the merits.
An order denying a rule 3.800(c) motion based on lack of jurisdiction is reviewable by certiorari. Staveley v. State, 866 So. 2d 1239, 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). If the trial court improperly denies the motion due to untimeliness, its order departs from the essential requirements of the law entitling the defendant to certiorari relief. Pruitt v. State, 932 So. 2d 617-18 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
The State correctly concedes that Del Valle’s rule 3.800(c) motion for reduction or modification of sentence was timely filed. Accordingly, the trial court did possess jurisdiction to consider its merits. The State also correctly concedes that the order departs from the essential requirements of law, and that Del Valle is entitled to certiorari relief. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 745 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
Rule 3.800(c) permits the filing of a motion to mitigate sentence “within 60 days after receipt by the court of a mandate issued by the appellate court on affirmance of the judgment and/or sentence on an original appealThe circuit court docket sheet shows the trial court received and recorded this court’s mandate affirming petitioner’s judgment and sentence on 15 August 2006. The docket sheet also shows Del Valle filed his motion to mitigate sentence on 25 August 2006, which is within the sixty days permitted under rule 3.800(c).
Therefore, we GRANT the petition for writ of certiorari, QUASH the order denying Del Valle’s rule 3.800(c) motion for lack of jurisdiction, and REMAND for further proceedings.
PLEUS, C.J., THOMPSON and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Graham v. State, 24 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…ertiorari is proper for purposes of challenging that ruling. See Eberheart v. State, 5 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Ukaj v. State, 969 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Wills v. State, 963 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Del Valle [*783] v. State, 948 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Arnold v. State, 621 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Thus, we treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. The issue presented is whether a trial court maintains jurisdiction to hear a timely filed motion to mitigate…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 745 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Flowers v. McDONOUGH, 932 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Staveley v. State, 866 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)