GLENN CHARLES AYO, 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 affirmed the denial of the extension to amend the motion but remanded for a ruling on the original motion.
The defendant filed a timely Rule 3.850 motion and subsequently requested an extension to amend it, which the trial court denied. The defendant appeal…
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 For Post-Conviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Glenn Charles Ayo filed a timely Rule 3.850motion within two years and 30 days of a judgment and sentence that had not been appealed. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 687 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Ayo then requested an extension of time to amend his 3.850 motion but the trial court denied the request.
Ayo now appeals that denial of his request for extension of time to amend. Absent an abuse of discretion, a trial court’s decision to permit or refuse to allow an amendment to a pleading will not be disturbed on appeal. See Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. MRK Const., Inc., 602 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); K.D. Lewis Enterprises Corp., Inc. v. Smith, 445 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). In Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities District v. Volusia County, 355 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), aff'd, 372 So. 2d 419 (Fla.1979), the court held that it was not an abuse of discretion to refuse permission to allow a belatedly requested amendment.
We affirm the denial, but remand to the trial court with directions to rule upon Ayo’s original 3.850 motion that was timely filed. No disposition has yet been made of the allegations in that original motion.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED.
PETERSON, THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. State, 820 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 2002)…trial court is in the best position to weigh the equities involved and, given these facts, it was clearly within the court’s discretion to refuse to entertain any more requests for extensions pertaining to the public records issue. See Ayo v. State, 708 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding that absent an abuse of discretion, a'trial court’s decision to permit or refuse to allow an amendment to a 3.850 motion will not be disturbed on appeal). Lastly, Moore claims that defense counsel was ineffective for fa…
-
Mitchell v. State, 818 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…urt reached the correct result, although not for that reason. A rule 3.850 motion is [*697] timely if filed within two years and thirty days of a judgment and sentence when there has been no direct appeal, as occurred in this case. See Ayo v. State, 708 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Mitchell was sentenced on July 16, 1999, and this motion was filed on August 8, 2001. However, Mitchell filed a prior motion pursuant to rule 3.800, in which he asserted that his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum and the…
-
Hampton v. State, 837 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ey to the commencement of the running of the two year time limit. In Hampton’s case, since he took no appeal, his judgment and sentence became final thirty days after they were rendered; i.e., the time his appellate rights expired. See Ayo v. State, 708 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Davis v. State, 687 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). See also Mitchell v. State, 818 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Hampton thus had until August 23, 2002, in which to file his motion. Since he filed it on August 19, 2002, it wa…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- K.D. Lewis Enters. Corp., Inc. v. Smith, 445 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. MRK Constr., Inc., 602 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Davis v. State, 687 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist. & Int'l Speedway Corp. v. Volusia Cnty., 355 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist. v. Volusia Cnty., 372 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1979)