TAJHON WILSON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 the petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was untimely filed and properly dismissed.
“in no case may a petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel be filed more than 4 years after the judgment and sentence became final on direct review.”
Rule 9.141(d)(5) establishing absolute temporal limitation
Wilson filed a petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel 16 years after his conviction and sentence became final. The petition was…
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 Finality Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Wilson seeks rehearing of our dismissal of his petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for lack of jurisdiction. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(d)(5), “a petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on direct review must not be filed more than 2 years after the judgment and sentence became final on direct review unless it alleges under oath with a specific factual basis that the petitioner was affirmatively misled about the results of the appeal by counsel." And “in no case may a petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel be filed more than 4 years after the judgment and sentence became final on direct review.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(d)(5); see also Thomas v. State, 413 So. 3d 1036, 1036 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025) (dismissing petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as untimely filed).
Here, Wilson's petition was filed on December 1, 2025, which is 16 years since his conviction and sentence became final. Under Rule 9.141(d)(5), his petition is clearly untimely and was therefore properly dismissed. Accordingly, we deny his motion for rehearing.