JAMES L. HALL, 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 was timely filed under the mailbox rule, despite the trial court's belief to the contrary.
Appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief which the trial court denied as untimely. The trial court believed the filing deadline had passed.…
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 Timeliness Of Filing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James L. Hall (Hall) challenges an order by which his motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 was summarily denied as untimely. We reverse.
Hall’s motion was received by the clerk of court on November 4, 1996. The trial court denied the motion because it believed that the two-year time period for filing such motions expired two days earlier on November 2, 1996. However, under the “mailbox rule” articulated in Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla.1992), appellant’s motion was deemed filed on October 31, 1996, the date when he gave the motion to prison officials to be notarized and then mailed, making the motion timely.1 The State concedes, correctly so, that the motion was timely filed. Therefore, we reverse and remand the matter to the trial court for consideration of appellant’s motion.2
WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur. . Hall appealed from his original conviction and we affirmed, issuing the mandate in that case on October 31, 1994. Hall v. State, 643 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Appellant had two years from that date to file his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. See Huff v. State, 569 So. 2d 1247 (Fla.1990). The motion was filed on the last day of the two-year period prescribed by Rule 3.850.
. We express no opinion about the merits of appellant’s motion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vanderblomen v. State, 709 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…in 3.800(a) motions also have explicitly recognized that such claims can still be raised in 3.850 motions. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 700 So. 2d 393, 393-94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Williams v. State, 699 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Willey v. State, 699 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Ramos, 697 So. 2d at 232; Butler v. State, 695 So. 2d 857, 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Hires v. State, 688 So. 2d 414, 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Barfield, 671 So. 2d at 821. In fact, the Florida Supreme Court has also apparently tak…
Authorities Cited
- Huff v. State, 569 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1990)
- State v. Thurston McCLAIN, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)