VICTOR MENDES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Refutation of Allegations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the summary denial of Victor Mendes’ amended motion for post-conviction relief. The trial court denied the motion as untimely even though our previous opinion had given Mendes leave to file the amendment. Mendes v. State, 734 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Since that opinion placed no limitation on when the amended motion could be filed, we cannot agree that the amendment filed almost eight months later was time barred.
We have considered the state’s alternative argument that denial would have been proper on a finding that Mendes’ claims were proeedurally barred. We find that his allegations state legally sufficient claims for postconviction relief. The order summarily denying the amended motion is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for a ruling on the merits. If the trial court again denies the motion, it must either hold an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Mendes’ allegations.
GUNTHER, SHAHOOD and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Indymac Fed. Bank FSB v. Hagan, 104 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…document. With respect to the characterization of motions, Florida courts place substance over form. In other words, “if the motion is mislabeled, the court will look to the substance of the motion, not the label.” Indus. Affiliates, Ltd. v. Testa, 770 So. 2d 202, 204 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); see also Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. of Conn. v. Sealey, 810 So. 2d 988, 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (‘We agree that the true nature of a motion must be determined by its content and not by the label the moving party has used to d…
-
Brigham v. State, 950 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…See Jumper v. State, 903 So. 2d 264, 265-66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that rule 3.850 motion was not time barred where the order did not place any time limitation on when the defendant would refile his rule 3.850 motion); see also Mendes v. State, 770 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (reversing the dismissal of an amended rule 3.850 motion as untimely because the order giving the defendant leave to file an amended motion placed no time limitation on when the amended motion could be filed). Accordingly, we rev…
-
Brown v. State, 940 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…the denial of a motion for directed verdict at the close of the evidence as a reservation of ruling, in order to preserve the point for appellate review it is necessary to make an appropriate post-trial motion. See Indus. Affiliates, Ltd. v. Testa, 770 So. 2d 202, 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); see also Williams v. Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach County, 770 So. 2d 706, 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (holding that the trial court erred in granting the School Board’s post-trial motion for directed verdict because “[although the Sch…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mendes v. State, 734 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Leach-Wells v. City OF Bradenton, 734 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)