DEAN SWANSON IRVING, 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 affirmed the denial of a post-conviction relief motion because it was filed beyond the two-year deadline established in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
A post-conviction relief motion filed in 1989 for convictions that became final in 1983 is untimely under Rule 3.850, which required filing by January 1, 1987.
[1] A post-conviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 must be filed within two years of the judgment becoming final, and claims of mental incompe…
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 was convicted in 1983, did not pursue a direct appeal, and filed a Rule 3.850 motion in 1989 alleging psychiatric disturbance and mental inc…
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 Mental Incompetence cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order denying his Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We find that the motion was filed beyond the time limit established in Rule 3.850, and we therefore affirm the order appealed.
Appellant’s Rule 3.850 motion recites that his convictions occurred in 1983, and that he did not pursue a direct appeal. Rule 3.850 states that:
Any person whose judgment and sentence became final prior to January 1, 1985, shall have until January 1, 1987, to file a motion in accordance with this rule.
Appellant’s motion was filed in 1989, and his claims do not involve any newly-established constitutional rights or other matters which could not have been previously known. Although appellant alleged that he was suffering from a “psychiatric disturbance” and “mental incompetency” prior to his conviction, he did not assert any period of continuing or recurring incompetence throughout the time provided for filing a motion under Rule 3.850. While the lower court denied the motion on other grounds, we find that on its face it indicated it was filed beyond the time allowed under the rule and accordingly affirm on this basis. Cf., Amazon v. State, 537 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), rev. denied 547 So. 2d 1209 (Fla.1989).
The order appealed is affirmed.
ERVIN and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.