State v. Rodriguez

326 So. 2d 245, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14305
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 3, 1976·No. No. 75-1336·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

326 So. 2d 245 (State v. Rodriguez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Abreu
650 So. 2d 163 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
State v. Migdahl
353 So. 2d 635 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
State v. Sotto
348 So. 2d 1222 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)