SAMUEL J. GARDNER, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court reversed the trial court's summary denial of a Rule 3.850 motion as untimely, holding that where a defendant alleges he discovered a withheld plea offer only belatedly, the time limit is abrogated under the rule's exception for facts unknown to the movant.
Where a defendant alleges facts showing he discovered a withheld plea offer only belatedly, the time limit for filing a Rule 3.850 motion is abrogated under the exception for facts unknown to the movant.
[1] Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(1), the time limit for filing a postconviction motion is abrogated where the defendant alleges unrefuted facts showing h…
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 intelligenceGardner's judgment became final in 1988. He alleged he learned for the first time on January 4, 1999, that the state had communicated a plea offer to …
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 Untimely Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Samuel J. Gardner appeals an order of the trial court summarily denying his motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 as untimely. Mr. Gardner’s judgment and sentence became final on August 18, 1988. He alleges in his motion that he learned for the first time on January 4, 1999, that the state had communicated to his lawyer before trial an offer to let him plead to a lesser-included offense and receive a shorter sentence than the one he received after his trial and conviction; that the lawyer who received this offer did not inform him of it; and that he would have accepted the offer had he known of it. These allegations, including the allegation that Mr. Gardner learned of the plea offer only belatedly when he saw certain written materials for the first time, are not refuted by the record. See Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.850(b)(1) (abrogating time limits where “the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant”); Rodriguez v. State, 777 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Seymore v. State, 693 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting Mr. Gardner’s claims.
WEBSTER, DAVIS, and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rodriguez v. State, 777 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Durwyn J. Seymore v. State, 693 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)