RONALD LAVERNE BRITTNER, 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.
Trial court abused its discretion by denying appellant's Rule 1.540 motion for relief from judgment where appellant did not timely receive notice of the sexual predator designation order and filed his motion within one year of receiving the judge's letter.
A trial court abuses its discretion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) by denying relief where the party did not timely receive notice of the judgment and filed the motion within one year of receiving notice.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) by denying relief from judgment when the party did not receive timely notice of the jud…
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 intelligenceAppellant was designated a sexual predator by trial court order but did not timely receive a copy of that order. He filed a Rule 1.540 motion for reli…
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 Sexual Predator Designation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his Motion for Relief from Judgment filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. On the basis of established precedent and the unrefuted factual allegations in appellant’s motion, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. See Woldarsky v. Woldarsky, 243 So. 2d 629, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971) (holding that trial courts are vested with discretion under rule 1.540(b) to grant relief to a party desiring to seek review of a final judgment, decree, or order that was rendered without notice to the party); see also Rosso v. Golden Surf Towers Condo. Ass’n, 711 So. 2d 1298, 1300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (reversing and remanding the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s 1.540 motion as the appellant did not timely receive a copy of the trial court’s order).
Because appellant did not timely receive a copy of the trial court’s order designating him a sexual predator, and because appellant filed his 1.540 motion within one year of his receipt of the trial judge’s letter informing him of the entry of the sexual predator designation order, we reverse and remand for further proceedings in order that appellant may timely appeal the trial court’s order. Cf. Owen v. State, 483 So. 2d 453, 454-55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (affirming the trial court’s order denying the appellant’s 1.540 motion as the appellant failed to file his motion within one year of his receipt of the trial judge’s letter informing him of the court’s order).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
BARFIELD, BROWNING and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mixson v. State, 857 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…h offenses were merely aggravated forms of the same underlying offense of theft. See id. Other cases have reached similar results. See, e.g., State v. Thompson, 607 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1992); Johnson v. State, 597 So. 2d 798 (Fla.1992); Oliver v. State, 842 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In Beaudry v. State, the defendant stole a car containing computer equipment and was convicted of grand theft motor vehicle and grand theft of $10,000 or more. 809 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The defendant challenged the…
-
Ward v. State, 898 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…v. State, 825 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (holding that it was improper to convict the defendant of grand theft and robbery of the same property taken at the same time from the same person, as was conceded by the state); see also Oliver v. State, 842 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (double jeopardy barred dual convictions for robbery and petit theft that were based on the taking of a cash drawer containing cash from the clerk during the same incident). We disagree, however, with Ward’s argument that the ag…
Authorities Cited
- Woldarsky v. Woldarsky, 243 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Guerra v. Selsdon Mar. Corp., 711 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Rosso v. Golden Surf Towers Condo. Ass'n, 711 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Owen v. State, 483 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)