NOVA FORMOLO, 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.
Petitioner Nova Formolo challenged the trial court's denial of her motion to reduce sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c), arguing the court erroneously calculated the ninety-day deadline for ruling on the motion. The appellate court granted certiorari relief, finding the trial court had miscalculated when the deadline expired and prematurely denied the motion.
The court granted certiorari relief and quashed the trial court's order denying the motion. The trial court's erroneous calculation of the ninety-day deadline is a limited but valid basis for certiorari relief. The entry of the premature denial order tolled the remaining portion of the ninety-day period, and the trial court should have until the original March 10, 2013 deadline (or as extended pursuant to rule 3.800(c)) to rule on the motion.
[1] A trial court's denial of a motion to reduce sentence based on an erroneous calculation of the time limit for ruling on the motion is a basis for certiorari relief.
[2] Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c), a trial court has ninety days to rule on a motion to reduce sentence.
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“A denial of a rule 3.800(c) motion based on an erroneous calculation of time is one of the limited bases on which certiorari relief is available for rulings on motions to modify or reduce sentences.”
Establishes the legal standard for when certiorari relief is available in sentencing motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 10, 2012, Formolo filed a timely rule 3.800(c) motion to reduce sentence following her guilty pleas in two cases. The trial court was requ…
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 Tolling Of Time Periods cases and more on FLexlaw
In this petition for writ of certiorari, Nova Formolo, pro se, challenges the denial of her motion to reduce sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). On December 10, 2012, Formolo filed a timely rule 3.800(c) motion following the entry of her pleas and the resulting sentences in two cases. Under rule 3.800(c), the trial court had ninety days to rule on this motion, after which the motion would be deemed denied. On February 13, 2013, the trial court denied Formolo’s rule 3.800(c) motion, finding that ninety days had elapsed from the date the motion was filed without the entry of an order resolving the motion. The State properly has conceded that the ninety-day time for the trial court to rule on the motion did not end until March 10, 2013, and that the trial court erred by denying the motion on that basis in February. A denial of a rule 3.800(c) motion based on an erroneous calculation of time is one of the limited bases on which certiorari relief is available for rulings on motions to modify or reduce sentences. See generally Lancaster v. State, 821 So.2d 416, 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Accordingly, we grant Formolo’s petition and quash the order denying her 3.800(c) motion.
Absent any guidance from caselaw, the entry of the order on February 13, 2013, at least acted to toll the remaining portion of the ninety-day period that would have otherwise expired on March 10, 2013. The trial court should have the time remaining from the date of tolling until the expiration of the ninety-day period to rule on the motion, and the trial court may extend the time for ruling pursuant to rule 3.800(c).
Granted.
CRENSHAW and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. State, 176 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…nial on the merits of a 3.800(c) motion is not appealable, denial “based on an erroneous calculation of time is one of the limited bases on which certiorari relief is available for rulings on motions to modify or reduce sentences.” Formolo v. State, 130 So. 3d 749, 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (citing Lancaster v. State, 821 So. 2d 416, 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). Because Petitioner timely filed the motion within sixty days of the imposition of her sentence, the [*1286] trial court had ninety days from the date of fil…
Authorities Cited
- Lancaster v. State, 821 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)