VICTOR LANIER, 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.
Victor Lanier appealed the trial court's denial of his amended motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The court reversed in part, holding that while amended motions filed outside the two-year statutory window are generally barred, the trial court erred by failing to determine whether the amended claims constituted a permissible enlargement of timely-filed claims that must be addressed on the merits.
While amended motions raising new claims filed outside the two-year period are properly denied as untimely, the two-year limitation does not preclude enlargement of issues raised in timely-filed motions. The trial court erred by rejecting the amended motion as untimely without first determining whether the amended claims enlarged a timely claim regarding subjective entrapment. To the extent the amended motion provides new information supporting the original failure-to-investigate entrapment claim, it constitutes a permissible enlargement requiring the trial court to address it on the merits.
[1] A trial court errs in ruling an amended motion for postconviction relief procedurally barred as untimely without first determining if the amended claims constitute an enl…
[2] A motion to amend a postconviction relief motion may be considered an enlargement of a timely filed claim, requiring the trial court to address its merits.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The two-year time period, however, does not preclude the enlargement of issues which were raised in a timely filed motion for postconviction relief.”
Establishes the key legal principle that the two-year Rule 3.850 deadline does not bar enlargement of timely-raised claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLanier was convicted and his conviction was affirmed on appeal with a mandate issued March 12, 1998. He filed a timely Rule 3.850 motion for postconvi…
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 Subjective Entrapment cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, J.
Victor Lanier appeals an order denying his amended motion for postconviction relief. We determine that the trial court erred in ruling that appellant’s motion to amend his rule 3.850 motion was procedurally barred as untimely without addressing whether the claims in the amended motion constitute an enlargement of a timely filed claim. To the extent that the amended motion may be viewed as an enlargement of a claim raised in his initial motion, the trial court was required to address the merits of the amended claim. In all other respects, the trial court is affirmed.
Appellant filed a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief on October 25, 1999. On July 16, 2001, prior to the trial court ruling on the motion, appellant filed a motion to amend the request for postconviction relief. The original conviction and sentence was affirmed on appeal with a mandate issuing on March 12,1998. Thus, the amended motion was filed outside the two-year window provided in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied the original motion and subsequently ruled that the amendment to the motion was procedurally barred as untimely pursuant to McConn v. State, 708 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
A trial court may properly deny an amended rule 3.850 motion as untimely when it raises new claims and is filed outside of the two-year time period. McConn, 708 So. 2d at 310. The two-year time period, however, does not preclude the enlargement of issues which were raised in a timely filed motion for postcon-viction relief. Brown v. State, 596 So. 2d 1026, 1027 (Fla.1992). One of the grounds raised in appellant’s original motion, ground six, was that defense counsel failed to raise the issue of entrapment. Appellant’s argument appeared to be based on what is known as “subjective entrapment,” which focuses on whether appellant was predisposed to commit the crime. See James v. State, 525 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Appellant’s motion to amend stated that trial counsel knew there were witnesses whose testimony could show police misconduct which induced appellant to commit the crime.
To the extent that appellant’s motion attempts to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based solely on a new claim of police misconduct, which is “objective entrapment,” it is untimely. To the extent, however, that grounds I and II of the amended motion provide new informa tion to support the original claim of failure to investigate a defense of “subjective entrapment,” they are an enlargement of a timely filed claim. We, therefore, reverse that part of the order denying ground six of the original motion and direct that the trial court address that claim as amended.
BOOTH and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Rincon v. State, 996 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…n filed within the time for filing a 3.850 motion and before the trial court had ruled on the originally-filed motion), except to the extent any grounds of the amended motion constituted mere enlargement of a timely filed claim. See Lanier v. State, 826 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Even on the merits, the amended motion lacks merit. Rincon argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the sentences because the twenty-five year terms exceeded the maximum for a second degree felony. Rinc…
-
Johnson v. State, 247 So. 3d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Raphael G. Surinach v. State, 110 So. 3d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…not part of the record in this appeal. Amended motions for postconviction relief are subject to the two-year time limit for filing rule 3.850 motions unless they merely enlarge an issue or issues raised in the original motion. See Lanier v. State, 826 So. 2d 460, 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding that the two-year time limit for filing rule 3.850 motions does not preclude untimely amended motions that enlarge on the claims raised in the timely motion); [*96] see also Jumper v. State, 903 So. 2d 264, 266 (Fla…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 596 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1992)
- McCONN v. State, 708 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- James v. State, 525 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)