MICHAEL MONCER, 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 reversed the summary denial of a postconviction relief motion and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the motion was timely filed under the mailbox rule, as supported by affidavits in the record.
A postconviction relief motion must be considered on its merits if affidavits establish timely mailing under the mailbox rule, requiring an evidentiary hearing when the record conflicts on timeliness.
[1] When affidavits in the appellate record attest to timely mailing of a postconviction relief motion under the mailbox rule, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hea…
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 intelligenceMichael Moncer filed a postconviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied the motion as untimely, but…
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 Perjury In An Official Proceeding cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael M. Moncer appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that it was untimely filed. Although the copy of the motion before the circuit court was indeed filed untimely, our limited record contains two affidavits attesting to an earlier timely filing of the motion. If the contents of the affidavits are correct, Moncer’s motion was timely filed in accordance with the mailbox rule of Iiaag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla.1992).
Because the record conflicts as to whether the motion was timely filed, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Moncer’s motion on that basis. We remand with directions to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Moncer originally mailed the motion in the timely fashion as he attests. If the sworn allegations are true, Moncer would be entitled to the consideration of his postconviction relief motion on its merits. On the other hand, if the sworn allegations are proven to be false, they would seem to present a proper basis for a charge of perjury in an official proceeding. § 837.02, Fla.Stat. (1993).
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Linn-Well Dev. Corp. v. Preston & Farley, Inc., 696 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1997)…UYER OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY PREVENTED BY THE “ECONOMIC LOSS RULE” FROM RECOVERING DAMAGES FOR FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT AGAINST THE REAL ESTATE AGENT AND ITS INDIVIDUAL AGENT REPRESENTING THE SELLERS? Linn-Well Dev. Corp. v. Preston & Farley, Inc., 666 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. This question is controlled by PK Ventures, Inc. v. Raymond James & Associates, 690 So. 2d 1296 (Fla.1997). We quash Linn-Well and remand for proceedings consistent with PK Ven…
-
Gerri A. Randolph v. Mitchell, 677 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…third party (a non-party to the engine rebuilding contract) from a fraud action? The supreme court has not yet decided this question although the issue is presently pending before the court. See Linn-Well Development Corp. v. Preston & Farley, Inc., 666 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Although the court in Woodson held that the real estate broker as well as the seller were protected by the economic loss rule, it did so merely because of the nature of plaintiffs damages and without considering the separate rol…
-
Moncer v. State, 697 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…initially denied appellant's motion as untimely, and appellant appealed. This court reversed and remanded with directions to the circuit court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the motion was timely mailed. See Moncer v. State, 666 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Apparently, it was during the pendency of that appeal that the court file was destroyed.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Thurston McCLAIN, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)