State v. Williams

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Williams

54 So. 3d 1085, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 2649, 2011 WL 710187

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 2, 2011

DocketNo. 4D10-237

StatusPublished

This text of 54 So. 3d 1085 (State v. Williams) 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. Williams, 54 So. 3d 1085, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 2649, 2011 WL 710187 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s mitigation of appellant’s sentence. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c), the motion to mitigate was filed within sixty days of imposition, but the hearing on the motion was held more than sixty days from imposition of the original sentence. Recently, in Schlabach v. State, 37 So.3d 230 (Fla.2010), our supreme court construed the time periods of the rule and determined that as long as the defendant files the motion to reduce or modify sentence within the sixty-day time period, the trial court does not lose jurisdiction solely because no hearing was scheduled and no order was entered within the sixty-day time period. In doing so the court quashed our court’s decision in State v. Schlabach, 1 So.3d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), upon which the state has relied in its brief.

Affirmed.

WARNER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s mitigation of appellant’s sentence. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c), the motion to mitigate was filed within sixty days of imposition, but the hearing on the motion was held more than sixty days from imposition of the original sentence. Recently, in Schlabach v. State, 37 So.3d 230 (Fla.2010), our supreme court construed the time periods of the rule and determined that as long as the defendant files the motion to reduce or modify sentence within the sixty-day time period, the trial court does not lose jurisdiction solely because no hearing was scheduled and no order was entered within the sixty-day time period. In doing so the court quashed our court’s decision in State v. Schlabach, 1 So.3d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), upon which the state has relied in its brief.

Affirmed.

WARNER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 So. 3d 1085, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 2649, 2011 WL 710187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-williams-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack