State v. Williams

54 So. 3d 1085, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 2649, 2011 WL 710187
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Williams. Read the opinion of the Court — 992 So. 2d 330
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 2, 2011·No. No. 4D10-237·Published

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

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

54 So. 3d 1085 (State v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Schlabach
1 So. 3d 1091 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Schlabach v. State
37 So. 3d 230 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2010)