Manspeaker v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Manspeaker v. State

90 So. 3d 998, 2012 WL 2549848, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10676

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 3, 2012

DocketNo. 1D12-1884

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 90 So. 3d 998 (Manspeaker 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

Manspeaker v. State, 90 So. 3d 998, 2012 WL 2549848, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10676 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In her petition for writ of certiorari, Petitioner, Lynette Manspeaker, challenges the trial court’s order denying her motion for reduction of sentence which she filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). As the State concedes, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in denying Petitioner’s motion on the basis that sixty days had passed since receipt of this Court’s mandate from her direct appeal. As Petitioner contends, she timely filed her motion with the trial court within sixty days of the United States Supreme Court’s denial of her petition for writ of certiorari. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(c) (providing in part that a court may reduce or modify a legal sentence imposed by it within sixty days after the highest state or federal court to which a petition for certiorari has been timely filed under authority of law has entered an order denying certiorari); see also Shannon v. State, 765 So.2d 847, 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (granting the petitioner’s certiorari petition because the rule 3.800(c) motion, which was filed with the trial court within sixty days of the United States Supreme Court’s denial of the petitioner’s certiorari petition, was timely filed).

Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for writ of certiorari, QUASH the trial court’s order, and REMAND for consideration of the motion on the merits.

DAVIS, LEWIS, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In her petition for writ of certiorari, Petitioner, Lynette Manspeaker, challenges the trial court’s order denying her motion for reduction of sentence which she filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). As the State concedes, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in denying Petitioner’s motion on the basis that sixty days had passed since receipt of this Court’s mandate from her direct appeal. As Petitioner contends, she timely filed her motion with the trial court within sixty days of the United States Supreme Court’s denial of her petition for writ of certiorari. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(c) (providing in part that a court may reduce or modify a legal sentence imposed by it within sixty days after the highest state or federal court to which a petition for certiorari has been timely filed under authority of law has entered an order denying certiorari); see also Shannon v. State, 765 So.2d 847, 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (granting the petitioner’s certiorari petition because the rule 3.800(c) motion, which was filed with the trial court within sixty days of the United States Supreme Court’s denial of the petitioner’s certiorari petition, was timely filed).

Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for writ of certiorari, QUASH the trial court’s order, and REMAND for consideration of the motion on the merits.

DAVIS, LEWIS, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 So. 3d 998, 2012 WL 2549848, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 10676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manspeaker-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack