Case Name: The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Humberto RODRIGUEZ, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1976-02-03
Citations: 326 So. 2d 245
Docket Number: No. 75-1336
Parties: The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Humberto RODRIGUEZ, Respondent.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HAV-ERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 326
Pages: 245–246

Head Matter:
The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Humberto RODRIGUEZ, Respondent.
No. 75-1336.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb. 3, 1976.
Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty., and Charles I. Poole, Asst. State’s Atty., for petitioner.
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for respondent.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HAV-ERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
By this common law petition for certio-rari, the State calls on for review an order by the trial judge mitigating a sentence more than sixty days after he had imposed same and subsequent to a change in the term of the court.
We quash the order here under review. After the expiration of time for filing a motion to mitigate [see: Rule 3.-800(b) RCrP], the court lost jurisdiction to mitigate a sentence. State v. Evans, Fla.App.1969, 225 So.2d 548; Ware v. State, Fla.App.1970, 231 So.2d 872; Sayer v. State, Fla.App.1972, 267 So.2d 42; State v. Brown, Fla.App.1975, 308 So.2d 655. It is also apparent that the term of court, in which the original sentence had been entered, had expired and the court was in a new term; therefore, it lacked the power to mitigate the sentence. Compare Troupe v. Rowe, Fla.1973, 283 So.2d 857; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1974, 297 So.2d 93.
Therefore, the order under review be and the same is hereby quashed, and the matter is returned to the trial court with directions to provide that the respondent comply with the original sentence as entered.