ALEJANDRO RAMOS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 set aside a plea is timely if filed within two years of the expiration of the appeal period, not just the entry of judgment and sentence.
Defendant entered a no contest plea and was adjudged guilty. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which the trial court denied as untimely. Th…
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 Motion To Set Aside Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Alejandro Ramos appeals a denial of his motion for post-conviction relief for being untimely filed. We reverse.
Ramos entered a no contest plea to several felony offenses on May 18,1992, for which he was adjudged guilty and given a suspended sentence. Ramos submitted a signed and notarized motion for post-conviction relief on May 18, 1994, and this motion was filed with the circuit court on May 24,1994. The lower court denied Ramos’s motion for post-conviction relief on the grounds that it was untimely filed more than two years after the defendant entered his plea.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b) provides, in part, that “[n]o motion shall be filed or considered pursuant to this rule if filed more than 2 years after the judgment and sentence become final in a non-capital case.... ” However, where the motion for post-conviction relief is essentially a motion to set aside the plea, and no previous appeal has been taken, the judgment and sentence do not become “final” for purposes of the rule until the thirty-day period for filing an appeal expires. Caracciolo v. State, 564 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Gust v. State, 535 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In this case, Ramos’s May 18, 1992, judgment and sentence did not become final until June 17, 1992, thirty days later. Ramos’ May 24th, 1994, motion was therefore timely filed within two years and thirty days of the entry of his plea, judgment and sentence.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s summary finding of untimeliness and remand for consideration of the merits of the defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Demps v. State, 696 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…iction and sentence are entered pursuant to a guilty plea, and no appeal is taken, the time for filing a motion under rule 3.850 begins to run 30 days from the sentencing date, when the time for filing a notice of appeal expires. See Ramos v. State, 658 So. 2d 169, 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). In Demps’ case the two-year period began to run on February 19, 1993. Absent tolling, it would have expired on February 20, 1995. . In a November 13, 1995 letter to the lower court Demps asked for an extension of time withi…
-
Cabrera v. State, 884 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…suant to rule 3.850 is untimely if filed more than two years after the conviction and sentence become final. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). If the conviction and sentence are not appealed, they become final 30 days after they are entered. Ramos v. State, 658 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Walk’s conviction and sentence became final on 4 January 1995. Consequently, the motion was time-barred. Id. at 933-34. Moreover, “claims which were or could have been raised on direct appeal are proeedurally barred in a rule 3.…
-
McGEE v. State, 684 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…convietion relief challenging the validity of a judgment and sentence imposed pursuant to a plea from which no appeal has been taken does not become final under rule 3.850 until the thirty-day period for taking an appeal has expired. Ramos v. State, 658 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Dixon v. State, 593 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Caracciolo v. State, 564 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s summary finding of untimeliness and remand with directions that it consider…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gust v. State, 535 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Caracciolo v. State, 564 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)