KENNETH R. MCGUFFEY, 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.
A motion to vacate a judgment filed outside the two-year rule 3.850 limitation period was reversed and remanded because the motion alleged facts suggesting an exception to the time bar and was legally sufficient on its face, requiring an evidentiary hearing.
A motion to vacate under rule 3.850 that is filed outside the two-year limitation period must receive an evidentiary hearing if it alleges facts that could bring it within the exception for newly discovered facts.
[1] A motion to vacate under rule 3.850 alleging facts that could constitute an exception to the two-year limitation period and that is legally sufficient on its face is enti…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant's judgment and sentence became final in August 1980. He filed a motion to vacate on January 12, 1987, alleging facts that he claimed were un…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Due Diligence Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s motion to vacate under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, was summarily denied after the state, in response to an order to show cause, pointed out that appellant’s judgment and sentence became final in August 1980 and, contrary to the limitation of rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the motion to vacate was filed January 12, 1987.
The pro se motion contains allegations from which it can reasonably be inferred that the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to appellant until July 1986 and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence earlier than that date. The motion also alleges that in November 1986 appellant had filed in this court a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging the identical facts, which this court by order dated December 30, 1986 had denied “without prejudice to seek same relief via Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in the trial court.” Since the motion alleges, at least by inference, matters which would bring it within the exception to the two-year limitation of rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and since the motion is otherwise legally sufficient on its face, the order denying it without an evidentiary hearing is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings. The burden remains upon appellant to prove his claimed exception to the two-year limitation and his due diligence after the facts upon which the claim is predicated became known to him.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HERSEY, C.J., STONE, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.