From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Golden

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Apr 14, 1980
382 So. 2d 815 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

Summary

In Golden, 382 So.2d at 815-16, the defendant filed a motion for the reduction of his sentence shortly after the sixty-day window first began. A hearing was held within the relevant time period, and at the hearing, the State agreed that the judge Could modify the sentence at a later date after the expiration of the sixty-day limitation.

Summary of this case from Schlabach v. State

Opinion

No. PP-296.

April 14, 1980.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Escambia County, M.C. Blanchard, J.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellant.

E. Brian Lang of Mann Lang, Pensacola, for appellee.


The record reveals that Golden was adjudicated guilty and sentenced on July 28, 1978. He appealed, and this Court issued a mandate on June 19, 1979. On June 29, 1979, Golden moved for reduction of sentence pursuant to Rule 3.800(b), Fla.R. Crim.P.

Golden asserts, and the State does not deny, that on July 16, 1979 a hearing was held on the motion and the State agreed that an order modifying the sentence could be entered on September 7, 1979, a date scheduled for the trial of other charges pending against Golden. On September 7, however, the State indicated that it would no longer concur in the modification even though it acknowledged the existence of the prior understanding of the parties before the judge.

On September 9, 1979 the judge entered his order modifying the sentence of July 28 and the State appealed, relying on State v. Smith, 360 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); De La Paz v. State, 358 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978); and State v. Mancil, 354 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). We affirm the order before us. The hearing of July 16, 1979 was within the 60-day limit. At that time the judge effectively enlarged the period of time in which he could enter the order modifying sentence. Rule 3.050, Fla. R.Crim.P.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., BOOTH and SHAW, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Golden

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Apr 14, 1980
382 So. 2d 815 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

In Golden, 382 So.2d at 815-16, the defendant filed a motion for the reduction of his sentence shortly after the sixty-day window first began. A hearing was held within the relevant time period, and at the hearing, the State agreed that the judge Could modify the sentence at a later date after the expiration of the sixty-day limitation.

Summary of this case from Schlabach v. State

In Golden, the court allowed an extension for good cause of the sixty-day mitigation time limit, relying on Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.050, which provides for the enlargement of procedural time limits upon good cause shown.

Summary of this case from Abreu v. State

In Golden, the trial judge held a hearing within the time limit set forth in Rule 3.800(b), and the state agreed that the court could enter its order modifying the defendant's sentence at the time scheduled for the trial of other charges against the defendant, in spite of the fact that by that date Rule 3.800(b)'s "jurisdictional" limit had been exceeded.

Summary of this case from Smith v. State
Case details for

State v. Golden

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT. v. TOMMY DALE GOLDEN, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Apr 14, 1980

Citations

382 So. 2d 815 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

Citing Cases

Schlabach v. State

The Third District Court of Appeal quashed the order mitigating the sentence, holding that the trial court…

State v. Abreu

On August 24, 1993, the last day of the 60-day period allowed by Rule 3.800(b), there was another hearing on…