Shafer v. State

959 So. 2d 1269, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 10529, 2007 WL 1946886
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 6, 2007·No. No. 2D07-1379·Published

Opinion

VILLANTI, Judge.

Richard Charles Shafer petitions for certiorari review of an order dismissing his motion for mitigation of sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). We have jurisdiction to review the order. See Cunniff v. State, 950 So.2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Byrd v. State, 920 So.2d 825, 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). The State rightfully concedes that this case warrants certiorari relief. We agree and grant Mr. Shafer’s petition.

Mr. Shafer was sentenced on December 20, 2006.1 He filed his rule 3.800(c) motion on February 9, 2007. Under rule 3.800(c), the trial court had sixty days, or until February 20, 2007,2 to modify Mr. Shafer’s sentence. Thus, Mr. Shafer filed his motion eleven days before the expiration of the sixty-day modification period.

On February 27, 2007, the trial court, relying on State v. Woodard, 866 So.2d 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), dismissed Mr. Shafer’s motion, concluding that it “lost jurisdiction to rule on the motion on February 18, 2007.” The court explained, “As this court no longer has jurisdiction to rule on it, the instant motion must be dismissed.” Although the trial court did not have the benefit of our opinion at the time, we have since ruled otherwise. See Cunniff, 950 So.2d at 1257. In Cunniff, we granted Mr. Cunniffs petition for writ of certiorari, holding that “the trial court should have either considered the motion on its merits or extended the time for considering the motion” when Mr. Cunniffs motion for mitigation of sentence was filed nine days before the expiration of the sixty-day modification period. Id. Because Mr. Shafer’s motion was filed eleven days before the expiration, Cunniff controls, and the trial court should have considered the merits of Mr. Shafer’s motion or extended the time to do so.

[1271] Because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, we grant Mr. Shafer’s petition, quash the trial court’s order, and remand for the trial court to consider the merits of the motion.

Petition for writ of certiorari is granted.

DAVIS, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur.

Footnotes

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

Shafer v. State, 959 So. 2d 1269, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 10529, 2007 WL 1946886 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

959 So. 2d 1269 (Shafer v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Woodard
866 So. 2d 120 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Byrd v. State
920 So. 2d 825 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Cunniff v. State
950 So. 2d 1255 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)