Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

803 So. 2d 846

Docket No. 1D01-2098.

Jolly v. State

Mary D. JOLLY, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 31, 2001.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2001-12-31

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 2009

7 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“However, an appellate court may exercise its certiorari jurisdiction to review a case where the motion was denied for, among other reasons, lack of jurisdiction based on the motion's untimeliness.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 854 So. 2d 260 - Ward v. State

Relies on Davis v. State · 697 So. 2d 1303 - Roauer v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-12-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Petitioner, pro se.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Bryan Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4The Petitioner challenges the trial court's summary denial of her motion for reduction/modification of sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). Although a trial court's order denying a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) motion to mitigate sentence on the merits is not appealable, an appellate court may exercise its certiorari jurisdiction to review a case where the motion was denied for lack of jurisdiction based on the motion's untimeliness. See Davis v. State,745 So.2d 499, 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see also Roauer v. State,697 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

¶5The trial court denied the Petitioner's motion on the mistaken belief that it no longer had jurisdiction to rule. Because the motion was filed within 60 days of the date that mandate issued in the Petitioner's direct appeal, the motion was timely. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(c). Accordingly, we treat the Petitioner's appeal of that denial as a petition for writ of certiorari. We grant the petition, quash the trial court's order denying the Petitioner's motion for reduction/modification *847 of sentence, and remand with instructions for the trial court to consider the motion on its merits.

¶6QUASHED AND REMANDED.

¶7DAVIS, BENTON, and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.

/803/so2d/846 · .json · Public domain