BENJAMIN H. WILLIAMS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a motion for rehearing was untimely and a second motion to vacate was successive and thus properly denied.
Defendant's motion to vacate was denied. He subsequently sent a letter to the court which was treated as a motion for rehearing or a second motion to …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
MILLS, Chief Judge.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of Benjamin Williams’ Motion to Vacate under Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P. On 19 December 1979, the trial court entered an order denying Williams’ motion after a hearing at which counsel for Williams was present. On 23 January 1980, Williams wrote a letter to the trial court which appears to have been treated by the judge as a motion for rehearing and by the clerk as a second motion to vacate.
Although a motion for rehearing is authorized by Rule 3.850, it must be filed within fifteen days of the service of the order. This was not done; therefore, if it was a motion for rehearing, it was untime ly. There was no appeal taken from the December order. If, on the other hand, the letter was a second motion to vacate, it raised the same issues as those in the prior motion and would be properly denied for that reason. Rule 3.850 provides, “[T]he sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.” See also State v. Piehl, 184 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1966); Blount v. State, 203 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967).
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Erling Knud Ove Hansen, Jr. v. State, 420 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…t denied and upon appeal to this Court was affirmed. Hansen v. State, 247 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Hansen is not entitled to file a second post-conviction motion alleging the same ground as the previously disposed of motion. Williams v. State, 392 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). AFFIRMED. ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.…
-
Buford A. Green v. State, 450 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…f the court shall promptly serve upon the prisoner a copy of any order denying a motion for post-conviction relief or denying a motion for rehearing noting thereon the date of service by an appropriate certificate of service. See Williams v. State, 392 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), petition for review dismissed, 399 So. 2d 1147 (Fla.1981). . Rule 3.070 states: Additional Time after Service by Mail. Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some act or take some proceedings within a prescribed p…
-
King v. State, 504 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…erefore should be denied. Rule 3.850(f) states that “[t]he prisoner may file a motion for rehearing of any order denying a motion under this rule within fifteen days of the date of service of the order.” (emphasis added) See also Williams v. State, 392 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The rule further provides that “ftjhe clerk of the court shall promptly serve upon the prisoner a copy of any order denying a motion for post-conviction relief or denying a motion for rehearing noting thereon the date of service…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Piehl, 184 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1966)
- Blunt v. State, 203 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)