GLENN SCHOFIELD, 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 appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief, finding that a prior appellate decision implicitly allowed the appellant to resubmit his motion without a specified time limit. The court directed the trial court to consider the merits of the motion.
No, the motion was not properly denied as untimely. The prior appellate decision implicitly authorized the appellant to resubmit his motion, and without a specified time limit, it must be treated as timely filed.
[1] A prior appellate decision affirming the denial of post-conviction relief "without prejudice" to resubmit the motion implicitly authorizes the defendant to refile the mot…
[2] A motion for post-conviction relief may be considered timely if an appellate court's prior ruling explicitly permitted the defendant to resubmit the motion without specif…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“without prejudice to Schofield to resubmit his motion to the trial court.”
Establishes the basis for the appellate court's decision that the appellant was permitted to refile his motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief, which the trial court denied as untimely. The appellant had previously filed a similar motion…
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 Postconviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court denied appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief, finding the motion was not filed within the time limitations prescribed by rule 3.850, of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the motion failed to allege either of the exceptions to the limitations period. We reverse, based upon an earlier decision of this court which expressly provided that the court’s prior affirmance of the denial of post-conviction relief was “without prejudice to Schofield to resubmit his motion to the trial court.” See Schofield v. State, 641 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (Schofield, I).
In Schofield I, this court explained that affirmance of the prior order denying post-conviction relief was based upon the following grounds: the motion failed to provide the information required by rule 3.850(c)(2) and (3); and three supplemental documents which contained eleven additional grounds for relief, and set forth facts and law in support of each ground, though signed and notarized, did not contain a proper oath. In the instant motion and incorporated memorandum of law, appellant corrected the deficiencies addressed by this court in Schofield I. Our reversal of this case is not due to any error in the trial court’s determination that the instant motion was untimely, but because this court’s prior decision implicitly authorized appellant to resubmit his motion for post-conviction relief, and did not specify a time within which the resubmitted motion was required to be filed. Rather, we conclude, based upon the decision in Schofield I, that appellant’s motion must be treated as timely filed and before the court for determination. Further, we suggest that in the future, should a panel determine that a defendant is entitled to re-submit a motion for post-conviction relief, a time limit should be placed on the period within which the resubmitted motion may be filed.
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief, and remand with directions to consider and to rule upon the merits of the motion.
BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 756 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…missing the motion as untimely filed was correct. We thus, affirm without prejudice to appellant filing a motion which complies with the requirements set out in the rule within thirty (30) days of this court’s mandate. See, e.g., Schofield v. State, 672 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Flint v. State, 561 So. 2d 1343, 1344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). ERVIN, VAN NORTWICK AND BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.…
Authorities Cited
- Schofield v. State, 641 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)