Winslow v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Winslow v. State

37 So. 3d 974, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8984, 2010 WL 2484294

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 22, 2010

Docket1D10-1555

StatusPublished

This text of 37 So. 3d 974 (Winslow v. State) 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

Winslow v. State, 37 So. 3d 974, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8984, 2010 WL 2484294 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is untimely. The appellant sought review of a judgment and sentence rendered on January 8, 2010. The notice of appeal, filed on March 23, 2010, was filed more than thirty days after this date of rendition. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b). In response to a sua sponte order, the appellant argued that the Court’s jurisdiction was timely invoked because rendition had been delayed until March 19, 2010, by a timely Motion to Modify Sentence that was filed to correct a sentencing error. A timely motion to correct a sentence filed *975 pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1) will stay rendition under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h). However, the attached motion did not raise a sentencing error or otherwise challenge the sentence as erroneous. Rather, the appellant sought a reduction and modification of his sentence due to mitigating factors that were detailed in the motion, which was brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). “A motion to reduce a sentence is not a post-judgment motion which tolls the time for filing an appeal.” Klemba v. State, 490 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). See Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h); Jones v. State, 28 So.3d 981 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Additionally, an order on a 3.800(c) motion is not appealable. Davis v. State, 745 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Daniels v. State, 568 So.2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the orders on appeal.

DISMISSED.

WEBSTER, WETHERELL, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is untimely. The appellant sought review of a judgment and sentence rendered on January 8, 2010. The notice of appeal, filed on March 23, 2010, was filed more than thirty days after this date of rendition. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b). In response to a sua sponte order, the appellant argued that the Court’s jurisdiction was timely invoked because rendition had been delayed until March 19, 2010, by a timely Motion to Modify Sentence that was filed to correct a sentencing error. A timely motion to correct a sentence filed *975 pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1) will stay rendition under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h). However, the attached motion did not raise a sentencing error or otherwise challenge the sentence as erroneous. Rather, the appellant sought a reduction and modification of his sentence due to mitigating factors that were detailed in the motion, which was brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). “A motion to reduce a sentence is not a post-judgment motion which tolls the time for filing an appeal.” Klemba v. State, 490 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). See Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h); Jones v. State, 28 So.3d 981 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Additionally, an order on a 3.800(c) motion is not appealable. Davis v. State, 745 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Daniels v. State, 568 So.2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the orders on appeal.

DISMISSED.

WEBSTER, WETHERELL, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 So. 3d 974, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8984, 2010 WL 2484294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winslow-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack