State v. Rodriguez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Rodriguez

326 So. 2d 245, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14305

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 3, 1976

DocketNo. 75-1336

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 326 So. 2d 245 (State v. Rodriguez) 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

State v. Rodriguez, 326 So. 2d 245, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14305 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By this common law petition for certio-rari, the State calls on for review an order by the trial judge mitigating a sentence more than sixty days after he had imposed same and subsequent to a change in the term of the court.

We quash the order here under review. After the expiration of time for filing a motion to mitigate [see: Rule 3.-800(b) RCrP], the court lost jurisdiction to mitigate a sentence. State v. Evans, Fla.App.1969, 225 So.2d 548; Ware v. State, Fla.App.1970, 231 So.2d 872; Sayer v. State, Fla.App.1972, 267 So.2d 42; State v. Brown, Fla.App.1975, 308 So.2d 655. It is also apparent that the term of court, in which the original sentence had been entered, had expired and the court was in a new term; therefore, it lacked the power to mitigate the sentence. Compare Troupe v. Rowe, Fla.1973, 283 So.2d 857; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1974, 297 So.2d 93.

Therefore, the order under review be and the same is hereby quashed, and the matter is returned to the trial court with directions to provide that the respondent comply with the original sentence as entered.

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

PER CURIAM.

By this common law petition for certio-rari, the State calls on for review an order by the trial judge mitigating a sentence more than sixty days after he had imposed same and subsequent to a change in the term of the court.

We quash the order here under review. After the expiration of time for filing a motion to mitigate [see: Rule 3.-800(b) RCrP], the court lost jurisdiction to mitigate a sentence. State v. Evans, Fla.App.1969, 225 So.2d 548; Ware v. State, Fla.App.1970, 231 So.2d 872; Sayer v. State, Fla.App.1972, 267 So.2d 42; State v. Brown, Fla.App.1975, 308 So.2d 655. It is also apparent that the term of court, in which the original sentence had been entered, had expired and the court was in a new term; therefore, it lacked the power to mitigate the sentence. Compare Troupe v. Rowe, Fla.1973, 283 So.2d 857; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1974, 297 So.2d 93.

Therefore, the order under review be and the same is hereby quashed, and the matter is returned to the trial court with directions to provide that the respondent comply with the original sentence as entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 So. 2d 245, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rodriguez-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack