Parrillo v. State

790 So. 2d 1231, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11093, 2001 WL 883389
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 8, 2001
DocketNo. 4D01-751
StatusPublished

This text of 790 So. 2d 1231 (Parrillo 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
Parrillo v. State, 790 So. 2d 1231, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11093, 2001 WL 883389 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

More than sixty days after the imposition of her sentence Appellant filed a motion to mitigate her sentence, mislabeling the motion as pursuant to rule 3.800(b) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 Even though the motion failed to allege any sentencing error and no appeal was pending, the trial court summarily denied the motion, explaining that it was denied under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1)(B), a rule that pertains to motions to correct sentencing errors that are filed pending appeal. We reverse and remand.

On remand, however, the trial court must deny as untimely appellant’s motion to mitigate her sentence since her motion was filed more than sixty days after imposition of her sentence. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(c).

GUNTHER, FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
790 So. 2d 1231, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11093, 2001 WL 883389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parrillo-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.