ROGER BUNGER, 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 held that the motion for postconviction relief was timely filed because the trial court mistakenly concluded that no appeal was taken, and the two-year time limit begins when the appellate court issues its mandate.
Roger Bunger appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. The trial court denied the motion as untimely, stating no appeal was…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.
Roger Bunger appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconvietion relief. We reverse the trial court’s order which stated that the motion was untimely.
Bunger was sentenced for multiple counts in Circuit Case No. 91-11882 on October 27, 1992. Bunger correctly alleges in his motion that this court affirmed his appeal of those sentences on November 30, 1994. See Bun-ger v. State, 646 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Our records confirm that the appeal involved the same circuit case number which is the subject of Bunger’s motion.1 Bunger filed the motion for postconviction relief on October 15, 1994. In denying Bunger’s motion, the trial court stated that no appeal was taken in this case and that more than two years had elapsed since Bunger’s sentence was imposed. This court’s records confirm that the trial judge mistakenly concluded that Bunger did not appeal the sentences in that case. Accordingly, we conclude that Bunger timely filed his motion within the two-year time limit permitted by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b).2
We reverse the summary denial of Bun-ger’s motion and remand this matter to the trial court. If the trial court again summarily denies the motion, it shall attach such portions of the record which conclusively refute Bunger’s allegations. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain appellate review.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND and WHATLEY, JJ., concur. . This court takes judicial notice of its records pursuant to section 90.202(6), Florida Statutes (1995).
. For the purpose of filing a timely rule 3.850 motion, if no petition for writ of certiorari is filed, the judgment and sentence become final when the appellate court issues its mandate. Huffv-State, 569 So. 2d 1247 (Fla.1990).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia v. State, 694 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ordingly, any error did not adversely impact upon appellant’s right to a fair trial and was harmless. See also Kellar v. State, 690 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Golden v. State, 688 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(on rehearing); Williams v. State, 687 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). It is our view that the decision in this ease brings us to the outer limits of sustainable noncompliance with Coney’s mandate. We caution trial judges, therefore, that they should exercise great care in ensuring that defendants…
-
Pena v. State, 773 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…ding to Pena, trial counsel admitted that he was unprepared and unsuccessfully sought a continuance. To assist in the resolution of these issues, this court has taken judicial notice of the court records of Pena’s direct appeal. See Bunger v. State, 687 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The appellate record shows that Pena’s trial counsel was adamant in his representations to the trial court that he had not [*1185] obtained witnesses and had not investigated the case. The trial court addressed the issues by-st…
-
Rachel v. State, 780 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ipts to refute claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to improper closing argument). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. FULMER, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., concur. . See Bunger v. State, 687 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (noting that this, court takes judicial notice of its records pursuant to section 90.202(6), Florida Statutes (1995)).…
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
- Huff v. State, 569 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1990)