Pawley v. State

193 So. 3d 996, 2016 WL 3017499, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7931
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 25, 2016·No. No. 3D15-2952·Published

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

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

193 So. 3d 996 (Pawley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Riggs v. State
847 So. 2d 1037 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Dixon v. State
616 So. 2d 61 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Howard v. State
914 So. 2d 455 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)