DONALD ROLLING, 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.
Court grants rehearing and remands for evidentiary hearing on whether defendant may file a belated Rule 3.850 motion based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and lack of access to counsel while incarcerated out of state.
A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing under Steele v. Kehoe to determine whether he may belatedly file a Rule 3.850 motion when he claims ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and deprivation of access to counsel due to out-of-state incarceration.
[1] A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing under Steele v. …
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 intelligenceDefendant Rolling obtained private counsel in 1996 and requested a postconviction motion, but counsel filed a habeas petition instead claiming appella…
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 Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
On Rehearing Granted
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration, we grant the motion for rehearing and remand this case for an evidentiary hearing. In his motion for rehearing, defendant states that when he obtained private counsel in 1996, defendant requested that counsel file a motion for postconviction relief, but counsel failed to do so. Instead, counsel filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus contending that appellate counsel had been ineffective. Defendant argues, and we agree, that he is entitled to a hearing under Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So. 2d 931, 934 (Fla.1999), to determine whether he is authorized to belatedly file a Rule 3.850 motion to challenge his conviction and sentence.
Defendant also contends that this court acted on an incorrect premise in assuming that if defendant was able to retain private counsel in 1996, he could have done so within the two-year period after his conviction became final on July 13,1989. Defendant points out that he was represented by the Public Defender in his original appeal. Defendant contends in substance that since he was incarcerated out of state for this entire time period without access to Florida legal materials, and did not have access to privately retained counsel until long after the Rule 3.850 time limit ran, he has been deprived of access to this court and to the Rule 3.850 procedure. The defendant is entitled to a hearing on this claim as well.
Reversed and remanded.