MARIO H. SUAREZ, 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.
Defendant's belated appeal of the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion was treated as a habeas petition, but the court affirmed the denial of relief for claims of involuntary plea and ineffective assistance of counsel.
A trial court properly denies a Rule 3.850 motion claiming involuntary plea and ineffective assistance of counsel when the record shows the defendant understood the proceedings and entered the plea knowingly.
[1] A defendant prevented from timely appealing a trial court's denial of a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion due to lack of timely notice may petition for a writ of habeas c…
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 intelligenceMario H. Suarez was prevented from timely appealing the trial court's denial of his original Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion because he did n…
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 Rule 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Mario H. Suarez, was prevented from timely appealing the trial court’s denial of his original 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief because he did not receive timely notice of that denial. We thus treat defendant’s “Petition for Review of Belated Appeal of 3.850 Denial” as a petition for writ of habeas corpus for belated appeal and reach the merits of the appeal of the denial of his original 3.850 motion. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(c); Hildebrand v. Singletary, 666 So .2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Button v. State, 641 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 645 So. 2d 450 (Fla.1994); see also State ex rel. Shevin v. District Court of Appeal, Third District, 316 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Viqueira v. Roth, 591 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
On the merits, we find no error in the trial court’s summary rejection of defendant’s claims of an involuntary plea and ineffective assistance of counsel. We do not consider the points of error raised in the present petition that were not raised in the original 3.850 motion.1 The relief sought by petitioner is denied.
. These points, centering primarily on petitioner's claim that he should have been provided an interpreter, are likely without merit as well because they are belied by the plea colloquy where petitioner professes to speak English and converses in English.
COPE, Judge
(dissenting).
In my view the appellant has sufficiently alleged a basis for relief on the basis of Ashley2 error. The motion was summarily denied and the record does not conclusively show that appellant is entitled to no relief. Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(g).3
. Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1993).
.If appellant should succeed in vacating his plea, the trial court would, of course, be free to impose the maximum legal sentence upon conviction, see Surinach v. State, 676 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), which in this case would be life imprisonment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roberts v. State, 963 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…mely notice of that denial. We thus treat defendant’s “Amendment to 3.800(a) Motion” as a petition for belated appeal and [*850] reach the merits of the appeal of the denial of his original 3.800 motion. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(c); Suarez v. State, 677 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). On the merits, we find no error in the trial court’s summary denial of the defendant’s claim of illegal sentencing, and affirm. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Robert L. Shevin v. The Dist. Court OF Appeal of Fla., 316 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1975)
- Viqueira v. Roth, 591 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Raphael Surinach v. State, 676 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Marlin Button v. State, 641 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Hildebrand v. Singletary, 666 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)