JARROD GEISSENBERGER, 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 held that the trial court erred in finding the motion untimely because the conviction did not become final until the supreme court dismissed the direct appeal.
Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied as untimely. The trial court based its untimeliness finding on the be…
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 Direct Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jarrod Geissenberger seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Geissenberger raised three issues of ineffective assistance of counsel in his motion. However, the trial court denied the motion, which was filed on March 26, 2001, as untimely filed. Because the trial court’s finding that Geissenberger’s conviction and sentence became final on January 28, 1999,1 is contradictory to allegations in the motion and is not supported by record attachments, we reverse.
The trial court’s finding that the motion was untimely was based on its conclusion that Geissenberger had not pursued a direct appeal from his conviction.
However, Geissenberger’s motion alleges that this court heard a direct appeal from his conviction, see Geissenberger v. State, 753 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (table), and that review was dismissed by the supreme court on February 2, 2000, see Geissenber- ger v. State, 751 So. 2d 1252 (Fla.2000) (table).
Thus, it appears that Geissenber-ger’s convictions and sentences did not become final until February 2, 2000. His motion filed on March 26, 2001, would have been timely under rule 3.850.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider the motion. If the trial court denies relief on remand, it should attach those portions of the record which refute Geissenberger’s claim. See McPherson v. State, 750 So. 2d 125, 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
PARKER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ„ Concur. . The order actually notes the date as January 28, 2001, but this appears to be a typographical error.