KHATRYDIA DORSEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Dorsey's appeal of a dismissed motion to modify sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) is treated as a certiorari petition and denied because the motion was filed on the sixtieth day without explanation or extension request, causing the circuit court to lose jurisdiction.
A circuit court does not depart from the essential requirements of law by dismissing a Rule 3.800(c) motion to modify sentence filed on the final day of the sixty-day period without explanation or motion for extension of time.
[1] A motion to modify sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) filed on the final day of the sixty-day jurisdictional period without explanation or motion…
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“Such an order is not reviewable by appeal but may be reviewed under this court's certiorari jurisdiction.”
Explaining that dismissals of Rule 3.800(c) motions are reviewed via certiorari rather than direct appeal.
Dorsey's counsel filed a motion to modify sentence on the afternoon of the sixtieth day after sentencing, within hours of the deadline, without explan…
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 Loss Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Khatrydia Dorsey appeals the dismissal of her motion to modify sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). “Such an order is not reviewable by appeal but may be reviewed under this court’s certiorari jurisdiction.” Velazquez v. State, 917 So.2d 306, 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Therefore, we treat this appeal as a timely filed petition for writ of certiorari and deny it.
Dorsey’s counsel filed the motion to modify sentence on the afternoon of the sixtieth day after sentencing, within a few hours of the time that the circuit court lost jurisdiction to consider the motion. See *708Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(c). The motion contained no explanation of extenuating circumstances justifying the late filing, nor did counsel file a separate motion for extension of time. Thei’efore, the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law when it dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. See Brantley v. Holloway, 685 So.2d 31, 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding that the circuit court lost jurisdiction to rule on a rule 3.800(c) motion hours after it was received because it was filed on the last day of the sixty-day timeframe without an explanation or motion for extension of time). But see Graham v. State, 24 So.3d 781, 783 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (holding that the circuit court retains jurisdiction to hear rule 3.800(c) motions filed any time before the sixty-day timeframe expires).
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
NORTHCUTT and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montesino v. State, 231 So. 3d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…denied the motion as outside its sixty days of modification jurisdiction. And because Montesino has not shown that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, we deny his petition. Petition denied.2 . See also Dorsey v. State, 30 So. 3d 707, 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ("Khatrydia Dorsey appeals the dismissal of her motion to modify sentence filed pursuant to. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). Such an order is not reviewable by appeal but may be reviewed under this court’s certio…
Authorities Cited
- Brantley v. The Honorable Cynthia A. Holloway, 685 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Graham v. State, 24 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- Velazquez v. State, 917 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Carwin Pettis v. State, 917 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)