WILLIAM E. WESTLEY, 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.
William Westley appealed the summary denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, claiming the trial court erred in deeming it untimely. The appellate court reversed, holding that the date stamped on the face of the motion, not the envelope, controls timeliness, and that prison official initials have no legal significance in determining filing dates.
The court held that Westley's rule 3.850 motion is timely. The date stamped on the face of the motion controls timeliness, not the date on the envelope. Prison official initials on the date have no legal significance. When a motion lacks a certificate of service, the date on the motion's face is controlling under Haag v. State.
[1] A pro se inmate's motion is deemed filed the moment the inmate places the motion in a prison official's hands.
[2] The date appearing on the face of a pro se inmate's motion, rather than the date on the envelope, controls issues of timeliness when the motion lacks a certificate of ser…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A motion is deemed filed the moment a pro se inmate places the motion in a prison official's hands [...] The date appearing on the face of the motion determines whether it was timely received by prison officials.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for when pro se inmate motions are deemed filed and what date controls timeliness determinations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWestley's judgment and sentence were entered on March 11, 2002. He did not file a direct appeal, and his deadline to do so expired on April 10, 2002, …
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 Certificate Of Service cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
William Westley appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand.
Westley’s rule 3.850 motion alleges four ineffective assistance of counsel claims, but the trial court dismissed the motion as untimely. Westley’s judgment and sentence were entered on March 11, 2002. Although Westley did not file a direct appeal, his time for filing it expired on April 10, 2002. Therefore, Westley’s two-year time limit for filing a rule 3.850 motion expired on April 10, 2004. See Davis v. State, 687 So. 2d 292, 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
The trial court acknowledged that the date stamped on the face of Westley’s motion was April 10, 2004, but deemed the date stamped on the motion’s envelope, April 13, 2004, as the filing date because it contained a prison official’s initials, while the date stamped on the motion’s face lacked any initials. Relying on Valencia v. State, 850 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the trial court further reasoned that West-ley did not provide any documentation or affidavits reflecting that he turned the motion over to prison officials on April 10, 2004.
A motion is deemed filed the moment a pro se inmate places the motion in a prison official’s hands. See Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla.1992). The date appearing on the face of the motion determines whether it was timely received by prison officials. Id. at 617 n. 3. Although not receding from Haag, Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324, 326 (Fla.2000), later held that the date appearing in the motion’s certificate of service controls issues of timeliness. However, when a document lacks a certificate of service, as in this case, then the date on the face of the motion is controlling. See Haag, 591 So. 2d at 617 n. 3. The trial court incorrectly held that the date stamped on the envelope was controlling because it was accompanied by the initials of a prison official.
Whether a prison official initials the date has no legal significance. Nothing in the rules requires prison officials to initial a motion’s date, and such a requirement appears to run counter to current case law. See id. at 617 (reasoning that “the pro se prisoner is unable to do anything but trust the prison officials.... If they betray this trust ... the prisoner is usually unable to even prove who is at fault.”). Furthermore, the Florida Administrative Code suggests that the initials on an envelope are more likely to be an inmate’s than a prison official’s. See Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 33-210.102(8)(b) (2004) (requiring the prison official to have the inmate initial next to the stamp on legal mail before mailing).
Moreover, the trial court’s reliance on Valencia to require that the defendant submit documentation or affidavits as proof of delivery is misapplied. In Valencia, the court’s concern was that nothing on the motion’s face indicated it was timely, so the court required affidavits and documentation from the defendant attesting to the date he delivered the motion to prison officials. 850 So. 2d at 608. This is not the case for Westley’s motion, which has April 10, 2004, date-stamped on its face.
Accordingly, we hold that Westley’s rule 3.850 motion is timely. The order denying postconvietion relief is reversed and remanded for consideration on the merits.
Reversed and remanded.
WHATLEY and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gisi v. State, 135 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…and the clock under rule 3.850 began to run — when the thirty-day period for filing an appeal expired. See Snipes v. State, 843 So. 2d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Ross v. State, 947 So. 2d 699, 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also Westley v. State, 903 So. 2d 312, 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Davis v. State, 687 So. 2d 292, 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Thus, Gisi had until June 5, 2012, to file a timely postconviction motion, so his April 20, 2012, motion was timely. Even though the motion was timely filed, it was fa…
-
Cunniff v. State, 950 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…by a prison inmate is deemed filed with the court at the moment the inmate loses control over the document by entrusting delivery or processing to prison officials); Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324, 326 (Fla.2000) (citing Haag); Westley v. State, 903 So. 2d 312, 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citing Haag and Thompson). Under rule 3.800(c), the court had sixty days, or until July 11, 2006, in which to reduce or modify Cunniffs sentence. Thus, Cun-niff timely filed his motion nine days before the expiration of the…
-
Armstrong v. State, 148 So. 3d 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…d sentence become final. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b). When no appeal is filed, finality occurs thirty days after rendition of the judgment and sentence, which is the date on which the time for filing the notice of appeal expires. Westley v. State, 903 So. 2d 312, 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Davis v. State, 687 So. 2d 292, 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Armstrong’s judgment and sentence were rendered on March 3, 2010. Because Armstrong did not file a notice of appeal, his judgment and sentence were final on April 2,…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Thurston McCLAIN, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2000)
- Davis v. State, 687 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Valencia v. State, 850 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)