From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Muller v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Oct 3, 2006
938 So. 2d 609 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

Opinion

No. 1D04-4635.

October 3, 2006.

An appeal from Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Original Jurisdiction.

Antonio Muller, pro se, Petitioner.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Alan R. Dakan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.


Petitioner seeks certiorari review of the trial court's denial of his motion for mitigation of sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). Although an order denying a motion to mitigate sentence on the merits is not appealable, an appellate court may exercise its certiorari jurisdiction to review a case where, as in the instant case, the motion was denied for lack of jurisdiction based on the motion's untimeliness. See Atkins v. State, 851 So.2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Jolly v. State, 803 So.2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). In this case, petitioner's motion was filed within 60 days of this court's issuance of mandate on petitioner's direct appeal. Therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction to consider petitioner's motion, and its failure to do so is a departure from the essential requirements of the law. See Atkins; Jolly.

Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, vacate the order, and remand with directions to consider petitioner's motion on its merits.

ERVIN, WEBSTER, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Muller v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Oct 3, 2006
938 So. 2d 609 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
Case details for

Muller v. State

Case Details

Full title:Antonio MULLER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Oct 3, 2006

Citations

938 So. 2d 609 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

Citing Cases

Casciola v. State

An order denying a motion to mitigate sentence is not an appealable order. See Moya v. State, 668 So.2d 279,…