Conrad v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Conrad v. State

148 So. 3d 148, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 15242, 2014 WL 4853511

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 1, 2014

Docket2D14-1015

StatusPublished

This text of 148 So. 3d 148 (Conrad 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

Conrad v. State, 148 So. 3d 148, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 15242, 2014 WL 4853511 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

WALLACE, Judge.

Alyssa Conrad appeals the order dismissing her motion to reduce or modify sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) as untimely. Because such an order is not appealable, we treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, and we grant the petition. See Bailey v. State, 136 So.3d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

The law is well settled that a circuit court departs from the essential requirements of law when it dismisses a timely rule 3.800(c) motion without considering the merits of the motion. See, e.g., id. at 616; Kwapil v. State, 44 So.3d 229, 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); McPherson v. State, 139 So.3d 478, 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). As the sixtieth day following the imposition of her sentence was Saturday, August 24, 2013, Conrad’s motion was timely filed when she placed it in the hands of prison officials on Monday, August 26, 2013. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.514(a)(1)(C) (providing that when the last day of a computational period is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday); Bailey, 136 So.3d at 616 (“The mailbox rule applies to motions filed in accordance with rule 3.800(c). Thus, a rule 3.800(c) motion is considered filed when entrusted to prison officials for further delivery or processing.” (citations omitted)).

Therefore, we grant the petition, quash the circuit court order dismissing her motion as untimely, and remand for the court to consider Conrad’s motion on its merits.

Petition granted; order quashed; remanded.

MORRIS and SLEET, JJ., Concur.

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

WALLACE, Judge.

Alyssa Conrad appeals the order dismissing her motion to reduce or modify sentence filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) as untimely. Because such an order is not appealable, we treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, and we grant the petition. See Bailey v. State, 136 So.3d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

The law is well settled that a circuit court departs from the essential requirements of law when it dismisses a timely rule 3.800(c) motion without considering the merits of the motion. See, e.g., id. at 616; Kwapil v. State, 44 So.3d 229, 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); McPherson v. State, 139 So.3d 478, 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). As the sixtieth day following the imposition of her sentence was Saturday, August 24, 2013, Conrad’s motion was timely filed when she placed it in the hands of prison officials on Monday, August 26, 2013. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.514(a)(1)(C) (providing that when the last day of a computational period is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday); Bailey, 136 So.3d at 616 (“The mailbox rule applies to motions filed in accordance with rule 3.800(c). Thus, a rule 3.800(c) motion is considered filed when entrusted to prison officials for further delivery or processing.” (citations omitted)).

Therefore, we grant the petition, quash the circuit court order dismissing her motion as untimely, and remand for the court to consider Conrad’s motion on its merits.

Petition granted; order quashed; remanded.

MORRIS and SLEET, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 So. 3d 148, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 15242, 2014 WL 4853511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conrad-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack