DEWAYNE FLOWERS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Facially Sufficient Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.850 motion for post-conviction relief. Because the trial court erred in denying the motion as untimely and the appellant has stated a facially sufficient claim, we reverse and remand the cause for a determination on the merits.
The appellant brought his motion, entitled “Motion to Enforce Plea,” pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 on November 5, 2003, within two years of the date his conviction and sentence became final, as required by the rule. .See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). The trial court therefore erred in finding that the motion was untimely filed. Furthermore, the motion states a facially sufficient claim for relief. See, e.g., McCollun v. State, 586 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Humphries v. State, 563 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Accordingly, the trial court’s summary denial of the appellant’s motion is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for the trial court to address the merits of the appellant’s claim.
KAHN, WEBSTER and POLSTON, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. State, 913 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…ng exposure. A motion to enforce a plea agreement should be construed as a rule 3.850 motion where the motion meets the procedural requirements of rule 3.850 and where the motion states a facially sufficient claim for relief. See Flowers v. State, 881 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Here, the appellant’s motion is properly sworn, timely, and procedurally correct. Further, as discussed below, the appellant’s motion states a facially sufficient claim for relief. In his motion, the appellant asserts that his…
Authorities Cited
- McCOLLUN v. State, 586 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Humphries v. State, 563 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)