ALFRED HENDRIX, PETITIONER,

v.

HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR., SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS

Citator

Cited By (21 total)

• Lynn v. State, 719 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
  …v. State, 707 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). However, we find no basis to conclude that the new rule revived. State v. District Court claims such as Lynn’s that were already time-barred under Rule 3.850(b). Finch v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2020, 717 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (promulgation of new Rule 9.140(j) did not revive appellant’s “belated appeal” claim that was already time-barred in 1994 under the two-year timetable set forth in Rule 3.850(b)). APPEAL DISMISSED. BARFIELD, C.J., and DAVIS,…
• Horton v. State, 734 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
  …PER CURIAM. DENIED. Lynn v. State, 719 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) and Finch v. State, 717 So. 2d 1070, 23 Fla. L. Weekly 2020 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., and SHIVERS, DOUGLASS B., Senior Judge, concur.…
• Edwards v. State, 745 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
  …j)(3)(C) provides that “[t]ime periods under this subdivision shall not begin to run prior to the effective date of this rule.” Thus, the instant petition, which was filed in July of 1998,1 was [*1061] timely. The state’s reliance on Finch v. State, 717 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) is misplaced because there, unlike the instant case, the time for raising the claim pursuant to Rule 3.850 had expired prior to Rule 9.140(j) becoming effective. Petitioner has made a showing of entitlement to relief, State v.…

Authorities Cited

• Ervin McCRAY v. State, 699 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 1997)