Pawley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pawley v. State

193 So. 3d 996, 2016 WL 3017499, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7931

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 25, 2016

DocketNo. 3D15-2952

StatusPublished

This text of 193 So. 3d 996 (Pawley 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

Pawley v. State, 193 So. 3d 996, 2016 WL 3017499, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7931 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(c) (providing that whether to reduce or mitigate a sentence lies within the discretion of the trial court, and a motion to mitigate must be filed within sixty days after the District Court of Appeal has issued its mandate on appeal); Howard v. State, 914 So.2d 455, 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (noting that Howard’s trial motion to mitigate his sentence was untimely, thus divesting the trial court with jurisdiction to address the motion, and an order denying a motion to mitigate a sentence is a non-appealable order); Riggs v. State, 847 So.2d 1037, 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (finding that an order denying a motion to mitigate a sentence is a non-appealable order); Dixon v. State, 616 So.2d 61, 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (dismissing appeal as the denial of a motion to mitigate a sentence is a non-appeal-able order).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(c) (providing that whether to reduce or mitigate a sentence lies within the discretion of the trial court, and a motion to mitigate must be filed within sixty days after the District Court of Appeal has issued its mandate on appeal); Howard v. State, 914 So.2d 455, 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (noting that Howard’s trial motion to mitigate his sentence was untimely, thus divesting the trial court with jurisdiction to address the motion, and an order denying a motion to mitigate a sentence is a non-appealable order); Riggs v. State, 847 So.2d 1037, 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (finding that an order denying a motion to mitigate a sentence is a non-appealable order); Dixon v. State, 616 So.2d 61, 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (dismissing appeal as the denial of a motion to mitigate a sentence is a non-appeal-able order).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 So. 3d 996, 2016 WL 3017499, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pawley-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack