Barthelemy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barthelemy v. State

73 So. 3d 821, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16740, 2011 WL 5108636

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 21, 2011

Docket5D11-2893

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 So. 3d 821 (Barthelemy v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barthelemy v. State, 73 So. 3d 821, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16740, 2011 WL 5108636 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jean F. Barthelemy seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s denial of his motion to mitigate his sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c).

On November 30, 2009, a jury found Barthelemy guilty of possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced him to five years’ incarceration. Barthelemy was granted a belated appeal *822 of his judgment and sentence. See Barthelemy v. State, 29 So.3d 387 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). This court affirmed his judgment and sentence. See Barthelemy v. State, 56 So.3d 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

On April 7, 2011, Barthelemy filed his rule 3.800(c) motion to mitigate sentence. The trial court denied Barthelemy’s motion as untimely because it was filed more than 60 days from the date his sentence was imposed. The court also stated, however, that “[e]ven if it were timely, the court would, in its discretion, deny the motion.” (emphasis added).

Barthelemy timely filed the instant cer-tiorari petition, contending that the trial court improperly denied his rule 3.800(c) motion. Specifically, he pointed to the rule’s language providing that a rule 3.800(c) motion may be filed within 60 days of sentencing or within 60 days of the court’s receipt of the appellate court’s mandate. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(c). Since the trial court received the mandate on March 11, 2011, and Barthelemy’s rule 3.800(c) motion was filed on April 7, 2011, his motion was timely. It matters not that Barthelemy’s direct appeal came after this court granted a belated appeal. Barthelemy filed his motion within 60 days of the trial court’s receipt of the direct appeal mandate. See Diaz v. State, 931 So.2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).

Nonetheless, given the trial court’s statement that it would have denied even a timely motion for mitigation, it would serve no purpose to remand the case for further judicial labor.

PETITION DENIED.

MONACO, COHEN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Jean F. Barthelemy seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s denial of his motion to mitigate his sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c).

On November 30, 2009, a jury found Barthelemy guilty of possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced him to five years’ incarceration. Barthelemy was granted a belated appeal *822 of his judgment and sentence. See Barthelemy v. State, 29 So.3d 387 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). This court affirmed his judgment and sentence. See Barthelemy v. State, 56 So.3d 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

On April 7, 2011, Barthelemy filed his rule 3.800(c) motion to mitigate sentence. The trial court denied Barthelemy’s motion as untimely because it was filed more than 60 days from the date his sentence was imposed. The court also stated, however, that “[e]ven if it were timely, the court would, in its discretion, deny the motion.” (emphasis added).

Barthelemy timely filed the instant cer-tiorari petition, contending that the trial court improperly denied his rule 3.800(c) motion. Specifically, he pointed to the rule’s language providing that a rule 3.800(c) motion may be filed within 60 days of sentencing or within 60 days of the court’s receipt of the appellate court’s mandate. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(c). Since the trial court received the mandate on March 11, 2011, and Barthelemy’s rule 3.800(c) motion was filed on April 7, 2011, his motion was timely. It matters not that Barthelemy’s direct appeal came after this court granted a belated appeal. Barthelemy filed his motion within 60 days of the trial court’s receipt of the direct appeal mandate. See Diaz v. State, 931 So.2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).

Nonetheless, given the trial court’s statement that it would have denied even a timely motion for mitigation, it would serve no purpose to remand the case for further judicial labor.

PETITION DENIED.

MONACO, COHEN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 So. 3d 821, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16740, 2011 WL 5108636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barthelemy-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack