Case Title: Cuneo v. State

Citation: 335 So. 2d 278

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1976-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
335 So. 2d 278 (1976)
Eugene R. CUNEO, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 48161.

Supreme Court of Florida.
July 8, 1976.
Waldense D. Malouf, Clearwater, for petitioner.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
ROBERTS, Justice.
This cause is before us on certiorari granted without argument to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Cuneo v. State, dismissing appeal, reported at 317 So. 2d 478 (Fla. App.2nd, 1975), which decision purportedly conflicts with State ex rel. Shevin v. Mann, 290 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974).
*279 Petitioner was informed against for the crime of assault with intent to commit rape, pleaded guilty, was adjudicated guilty, and was sentenced to prison for not less than six months nor more than five years. Judgment and sentence was rendered August 12, 1974.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of sentence filed August 27, 1974, was denied by the trial court on December 17, 1974.
Notice of appeal from the judgment, sentence and denial of motion for reconsideration was filed with the District Court of Appeal, Second District, on January 14, 1975.
Appellee, State of Florida, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely and alleged that the record does not reflect that any motion for new trial or other motion contemplated by the rules was filed after judgment and sentence was rendered, and that although a motion for reconsideration was filed, such motion is not specifically contemplated by the rules and, therefore, does not toll the time for filing notice of appeal.
The District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Certiorari review was sought here on the basis of conflict with this Court's decision in State ex rel. Shevin v. Mann, supra, wherein a motion for new trial was filed after conviction on a plea of guilty. This Court explained:
The question then arises as to whether petitioner's motion for reconsideration of sentence may be effectively treated as a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides, in pertinent part:
However, then we must consider that petitioner's request in his motion for reconsideration was for the setting aside of the sentence and conviction and the placing of him on probation. In State v. Evans, 225 So. 2d 548 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1969), certiorari denied 229 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1969), certiorari denied 397 U.S. 1053, 90 S. Ct. 1393, 25 L. Ed. 2d 668, the court stated:
Petitioner argues that his motion for reconsideration could properly be treated as a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.[1] We cannot agree. Furthermore, his post-conviction motion was not a motion for new trial from an adjudication of guilt based on a plea of guilty as was the case in Mann, supra.
Since the petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court, we granted certiorari, but upon careful consideration of the matter, the briefs and record, we have determined that the cited decision presents no direct conflict as required by Article V, Section 3(b) (3), Constitution of Florida.
Accordingly, the writ must be and is hereby discharged.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND and SUNDBERG, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, C.J., dissents.
[1]  The sentence imposed by a trial judge following a plea of guilty is solely within his discretion subject only to the condition that it meets the standards provided by law. Pitts v. State, 181 So. 2d 739 (Fla.App. 1st, 1966).