JASON C. LEMAY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Facial Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
[*854] KELLY, Judge.
Jason C. Lemay challenges the postcon-viction court’s order summarily denying as untimely his motion for postconviction DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. Although we conclude Lemay’s motion was timely filed,1 we affirm the postconviction court’s order because Lemay’s motion is facially insufficient. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(b)(1). This affirmance is without prejudice to Lemay’s right to file a timely, facially sufficient rule 3.853 motion. Any such motion should not be considered successive.
Affirmed.
WHATLEY and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur. . See In re: Amendments to Florida Ride of Criminal Procedure 3.853(d), No. SC05-1702 (Fla. Sept. 29, 2005) (extending the deadline for filing a motion for postconviction DNA testing in rule 3.853(d)(1)(A) from October 1, 2005, to July 1, 2006).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosa v. State, 147 So. 3d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…la. 2d DCA 2007). The State acknowledges that typically our affir-mance of a denial like this would be without prejudice to the refiling of a facially sufficient motion. See, e.g., Harvey v. State, 925 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Lemay v. State, 921 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). [*584] We agree that the motion was facially insufficient because it did not assert that identity was a genuinely disputed issue in this case. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853(b)(4). Appellant’s motion alleged that none of his DNA would be…
-
Bain v. State, 963 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ally insufficient. Ordinarily, a facially insufficient rule 3.853 motion should be dismissed or denied without prejudice to the refiling of a facially sufficient motion. See, e.g., Harvey v. State, 925 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Lemay v. State, 921 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Scarborough v. State, 906 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). However, Bain requests the same [*915] relief for the same reasons in both motions. In light of our holding on Bain’s pro se motion for DNA testing, we affirm the postconvi…
-
Bing v. State, 268 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…rdingly, we affirm without prejudice to any right Bing may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.853 motion. Any such motion should not be considered successive. See Harvey v. State, 925 So. 2d 1111, 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Lemay v. State, 921 So. 2d 853, 854 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Affirmed. NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.…