BILLY F. HANSEN, 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.
A timely filed motion for voluntary dismissal of a rule 3.850 motion should be granted without prejudice, even if the trial court ruled on the underlying motion first.
Appellant sought voluntary dismissal of his rule 3.850 motion. The motion to dismiss was filed pursuant to the mailbox rule before the trial court rul…
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 Motion For Voluntary Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice of his rule 3.850 motion, and subsequent denial on the merits of his rule 3.850 motion. Because Appellant timely filed the motion to dismiss pursuant to the mailbox rule before the trial court ruled on Appellant’s rule 3.850 motion, we reverse.
Where an appellant files a timely motion for voluntary dismissal of a rule 3.850 motion, and the state suffers no prejudice, the appellant’s motion should be granted. See Nelson v. State, 784 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Such a motion should be granted without prejudice to the appellant’s right to file a subsequent motion. See Ford v. State, 752 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Carvalleria v. State, 675 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). A motion to dismiss is timely where it is filed before the trial court has ruled on the rale 3.850 motion. See Gonzalez v. State, 664 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Howard v. State, 743 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
In the present case, Appellant’s motion to dismiss was filed pursuant to the mailbox rale on August 14, 2001, and the trial court clerk’s office received the motion on August 16, 2001, prior to the trial court’s ruling upon the underlying rale 3.850 motion on August 17, 2001. Accordingly, Appellant’s motion to dismiss was timely. Although the trial court may have ruled upon the postconviction motion before becoming aware that a motion to dismiss was pending, the trial court should have corrected its oversight when ruling upon Appellant’s timely motion for rehearing. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief and remand with directions to grant Ap pellant’s motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BOOTH, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sterling Franklyn Stubbs v. State, 675 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Howard v. State, 743 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Ford v. State, 752 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Nelson v. State, 784 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Jema Cline Terrell v. State, 664 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- DAY v. State, 664 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)