JEFFREY BRIGHAM, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Petitioner sought a belated appeal of an order denying his post-conviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, claiming he did not receive notice of the order until after the appeal deadline had passed. The court granted the petition, holding that the proper remedy for a belated appeal in criminal proceedings is a petition under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140, not a civil motion under Rule 1.540.
The proper remedy to obtain a belated appeal from an order denying a rule 3.850 motion is by petition to the appellate court pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140, not by motion in the trial court under Rule 1.540. Petitioner established the right to obtain a belated appeal because the state did not refute his sworn factual representations regarding non-receipt of the order.
[1] A petition to this court pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140 is the proper remedy to obtain a belated appeal from an order denying a motion for post-con…
[2] A motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 is the appropriate remedy to seek relief in the trial court for belated appeals from underlying civil proceedin…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The proper remedy to obtain a belated appeal from an underlying proceeding pursuant to a rule of criminal procedure is by petition to this court pursuant to rule 9.140.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for belated appeals in criminal cases, distinguishing them from civil proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe circuit court entered an order denying petitioner's 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief on March 29, 2000. Petitioner claimed he did not recei…
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 1.540 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks belated appeal of an order denying a motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The order denying the 3.850 motion was rendered on March 29, 2000. In the sworn petition, petitioner states that he did not receive a copy of the circuit court’s order until May 15, 2000. He asserts that he is entitled to belated appeal because he did not receive a copy of the order denying his motion until after the time for taking an appeal had expired. Petitioner attaches a prison mail log in support of this allegation. The mail log shows that petitioner received legal mail from the clerk of the circuit court on May 15, 2000. Petitioner states that he sought to retrieve more concrete documentary evidence to submit with his petition, but because of institutional policies, the mail room staff will not provide him with a complete copy of the mail log.
In response to an order to show cause, the state suggests that the better remedy for this claim is a motion in the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, which advises the trial court that the order was not received or was otherwise misplaced and should be re-issued in the interest of justice. The state cites Brown v. State, 708 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), Snelson v. Snelson, 440 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) and Dempsey v. Florida Department of Corrections, 765 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
We write to address the suggestion that petitioner’s proper remedy to obtain belated appeal from an order denying a rule 3.850 motion is to file a motion pursuant to a rule of civil procedure. We find that the reliance on Brown, Snelson and Dempsey in support of this argument is misplaced. See, Funchess v. Moore, 766 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). In Brown, petitioner sought to obtain belated appeal from an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The remedy of habeas corpus is civil in nature. See, generally, State v. Buchanan, 191 So. 2d 33 (Fla.1966); Florida Parole and Probation Commission v. Brown, 499 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Snelson and Dempsey likewise arose from underlying civil proceedings. Where the proceedings below are civil in nature, this court lacks the authority to grant a belated appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140 and the petitioner must seek relief in the trial court by motion pursuant to rule 1.540. See, Hollingsworth v. Szczecina, 731 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
Here, however, petitioner is seeking belated appeal of an order denying a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850. The proper remedy to obtain a belated appeal from an underlying proceeding pursuant to a rule of criminal procedure is by petition to this court pursuant to rule 9.140. Funchess.
On the merits, the state’s response does not attempt to refute the factual representations made under oath by appellant. See, Dubois v. State, 705 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Nor does the state’s response present a good-faith factual basis for opposing the relief requested by the appellant. See, Wiggins v. State, 745 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
Accordingly, we find that petitioner has established the right to obtain a belated appeal from the March 29, 2000, order denying defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief in Liberty County case number 39-97-01-CFA. The trial court shall treat this court’s mandate as the notice of appeal. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(j)(5)(D).
PETITION GRANTED.
JOANOS, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Daily v. Soloway, 125 So. 3d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…ed by action attributable to the trial court or the clerk” where the underlying rationale is “one of fundamental fairness”). Accordingly, this dismissal is without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek relief in the circuit court. Brigham v. State, 769 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (explaining avenues for obtaining belated appeal in criminal and civil cases); Snelson v. Snelson, 440 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (explaining that relief may be sought in the trial court). DISMISSED. WETHERELL, SWANSON, and…
-
Fain v. State, 886 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…reby dismissed as untimely. This dismissal is without prejudice to the appellant’s right to seek relief in the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. See Day v. Moore, 785 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Cf. Brigham v. State, 769 So. 2d 1100, 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur.…
-
In the Interest of B.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 893 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…at she never filed the appeal the Mother had requested. In a civil proceeding, this court cannot grant a belated appeal, and generally the litigant must file a motion in the trial court pursuant to rule 1.540 to obtain relief. See Brigham v. State, 769 So. 2d 1100, 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). In termination of parental rights cases, however, the proper vehicle for relief to obtain a belated appeal is to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court. In re E.H., 609 So. 2d 1289, 1290 (Fla.1992); M…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Snelson v. Snelson, 440 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Joel N. LEE v. Buchanan, 191 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1966)
- Hollingsworth v. Szczecina, 731 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Nugent Hutchins v. Gale Indus. & Scibal Assocs. of Fla., Inc., 708 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Brown v. State, 708 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Funchess v. Moore, 766 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Renny Ray Dubois v. State, 705 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Funchess v. State, 705 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Wiggins v. State, 745 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Dempsey v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 765 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)