MICHAEL A. LOVE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Direct Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged that he was denied a direct appeal because his counsel failed to file a notice of appeal. In his brief, he states that his request for direct appeal was timely, as it was made at the conclusion of his sentencing hearing. The trial court denied the motion for post-conviction relief, pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, since it was filed more than two years after the judgment and sentence became final. Subsequent to the trial court’s denial, this court issued its opinion in Woolbright v. State, 606 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) ruling that the two year limitations period of rule 3.850 is not applicable where a defendant’s right to appeal is frustrated by trial counsel’s conduct, and the motion pertains to conduct occurring prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Dis trict Court of Appeal, First District, 569 So .2d 439 (Fla.1990). See Love v. State, 623 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH, SMITH and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Love v. State, 638 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…of Rule 3.850 is inapplicable where a defendant’s right to appeal is frustrated by trial counsel’s conduct and the motion pertains to conduct occurring prior to State v. First District Court of Appeal, 569 So. 2d 439 (Fla.1990)). See Love v. State, 625 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The Love mandate issued on November 8, 1993. On January 6, 1994, the trial court again denied the January 1992 3.850 motion seeking belated appeal, on the ground that Love waived his right to appeal by pleading guilty. Love agai…
-
Paige v. State, 645 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…strict, and which were, in turn, filed within two years of the State v. District Court of Appeal decision. Accordingly, the rationale in the present decision does not conflict with either Woolbright or Love. We further do not consider Love v. State, 625 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), to be controlling, since that decision, while purporting to follow Woolbright and the first Love decision, does not mention a date of filing for the 3.850 motion. BARFIELD, KAHN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Dist. Court of Appeal of Fla., 569 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1990)
- Woolbright v. State, 606 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Love v. State, 623 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)