CHARLES P. DE GESO, 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 trial court erroneously dismissed the motion for postconviction relief as untimely, failing to reach the merits of the claims.
De Geso was convicted of cocaine trafficking and sentenced. After an appeal and resentencing, he filed a motion for postconviction relief.…
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 Finality Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Charles De Geso challenges the trial court’s order summarily dismissing his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because the trial court erroneously dismissed the motion as untimely and did not reach the merits of De Geso’s claims, we reverse.
On April 28, 1999, a jury found De Geso guilty of two counts of trafficking in cocaine. He was sentenced to eleven and a half years in prison. De Geso appealed, and on December 12, 2000, the mandate of this court issued in which his convictions were affirmed. His sentences were reversed, and the case was remanded. On February 15, 2001, De Geso was resen-tenced to concurrent terms of 83.2 months in prison. He did not appeal. This motion for postconviction relief was filed on February 18, 2003.
Rule 3.850(b) states that “[n]o other motion shall be filed or considered pursuant to this rule if filed more than 2 years after the judgment and sentence become final in a noncapital case.... ” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b) (emphasis added). Accordingly, De Geso had until roughly March 15, 2003, to file a motion for postconviction relief. Therefore, his motion was timely filed.
Reversed and remanded.
COVINGTON and VILLANTI, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waiter v. State, 965 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…t and sentence become final in a noncapital case.” See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). If the defendant does not file a direct appeal, the time period to file a rule 3.850motion expires two years and thirty days after the sentencing. See De Geso v. State, 866 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Accordingly, Waiter had until approximately April 10, 2005, to file a timely rule 3.850motion. Therefore, the postconviction court correctly found that his July 12, 2006, rule 3.850 motion was untimely. Subsequently, on November…