Oser v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Oser v. State

699 So. 2d 844, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11165, 1997 WL 600387

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 1, 1997

DocketNo. 97-2817

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 699 So. 2d 844 (Oser 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

Oser v. State, 699 So. 2d 844, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11165, 1997 WL 600387 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

GLICKSTEIN, Judge.

In 1997, appellant filed a motion in the trial court to mitigate his sentence. Although he referred to rule 3.800(b), Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, said paragraph is now (c). Amendments to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g) & Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, 675 So.2d 1374 (Fla.1996). The change became effective July 1, 1996.

[845]*845In Johnson v. State, 543 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), we reaffirmed our earlier position in Adams v. State, 487 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), that orders denying motions to mitigate, such as that made here, were not appealable. Our companion courts agree. See Lee v. State, 662 So.2d 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Bourjolly v. State, 623 So.2d 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Daniels v. State, 568 So.2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

Accordingly, we sua sponte dismiss the appeal.

KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

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