BERNARD NAVA, 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.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is untimely because it was filed more than two years after the conviction became final on direct review.
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The mandate in his direct appeal issued on…
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 Appellate Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Bernard Nava, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel in connection with his direct appeal (Closed Case No. 97-860). Whereas the mandate issued in his direct appeal on February 6, 1998, and Nava’s petition is dated November 27, 2000, we find that the petition is untimely on its face.
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(j)(3)(B)1 provides:
A petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel shall not be filed more than two years after the conviction becomes final on direct review unless it alleges under oath with a specific factual basis that the petitioner was affirmatively misled about the results of the appeal by counsel.
Here, petitioner alleges that his attorney failed to inform him of this court’s decision, which resulted in him not learning of the affirmance until April 22, 1999, when this court responded to his inquiry. Petitioner does not, however, allege that his attorney “affirmatively misled ” him about the affirmance so as to qualify for an exception to the two-year rule. We, therefore, find the petition to be untimely, and dismiss it as such.
STONE, STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur. . Effective January 1, 2001, this language now appears as rule 9.141(c)(4)(B).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Osorio v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 558 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (M.D. Fla. 2008)…was insufficient on its face to satisfy the Rule’s requirements, because Osorio did not show that he was misled about the results of the appeal; rather, he complained counsel misled him about the merits of the appeal. See, e.g., Nava v. State, 781 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (petition found to be untimely where petitioner alleged that his attorney failed to inform him of the appellate court’s decision, but did not, however, allege that his attorney “affirmatively misled” him about the affirmance so a…