From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Simms v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Aug 14, 2009
16 So. 3d 229 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

Summary

holding that court lacked jurisdiction to consider appeal of order denying rule 3.800(c) motion

Summary of this case from Climpson v. State

Opinion

No. 5D09-1802.

August 14, 2009.

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County, Mark J. Hill, Judge.

Jaynanne Simms, Ocala, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.


Jaynanne Simms ["Simms"] seeks to appeal the denial of her Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) motion for reduction or modification of sentence. She had requested a reduction in her sentence based on the progression of her cancer. Because the denial of a Rule 3.800(c) motion is not subject to appeal, we lack jurisdiction. See Adams v. State, 800 So.2d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

After Simms sent a letter to the trial court requesting the reduction, the trial court denied the motion without comment. Unfortunately, the denial order incorrectly informed Simms that she had thirty days in which to appeal, which may have been what prompted her to do so. See Mowatt v. State, 963 So.2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (recommending removal of language from order denying Rule 3.800(c) that defendant may appeal within thirty days).

DISMISSED.

GRIFFIN, TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Simms v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Aug 14, 2009
16 So. 3d 229 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

holding that court lacked jurisdiction to consider appeal of order denying rule 3.800(c) motion

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

Simms v. State

Case Details

Full title:Jaynanne SIMMS, Appellant, STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Aug 14, 2009

Citations

16 So. 3d 229 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

Citing Cases

Climpson v. State

Because an order denying a motion to mitigate sentence is not appealable, we lack jurisdiction. See Simms v.…