VICTOR G. WASHINGTON, 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.
Victor Washington appealed the summary denial of his rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion. The court reversed, holding that Washington was entitled to withdraw his motion before the lower court ruled on the merits, and remanded with instructions to grant the withdrawal.
Washington was entitled to withdraw his rule 3.850 motion as long as the state showed no prejudice. Because the state failed to demonstrate prejudice, the lower court's failure to grant the withdrawal was an abuse of discretion, and the case must be remanded to allow the withdrawal.
[1] A defendant is entitled to withdraw a rule 3.850 motion up to the point the court rules on its merits, absent a showing of prejudice to the state.
[2] The inadvertent failure to grant a timely requested motion to withdraw a rule 3.850 motion constitutes an abuse of discretion.
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“Washington was entitled to withdraw his rule 3.850 motion up to and until the lower court ruled on the merits, so long as the state did not show prejudice.”
Establishes the legal standard for withdrawal of postconviction motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWashington filed a rule 3.850 postconviction motion on October 26, 2005. On April 4, 2006, before the state filed its response (due April 7, 2006), Wa…
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 Motion To Withdraw cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Victor Washington appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for postcon-viction relief. We reverse that ruling as the lower court should not have reached the merits of the motion. We remand with instructions to grant Washington’s motion to withdraw.
Washington filed his rule 3.850 motion on October 26, 2005 and the lower court ordered a state response on November 21, 2005. On April 4, 2006, prior to-the state filing a response, Washington attempted to withdraw his rule 3.850 motion. Washington believed his postconviction motion was premature because he wanted to pursue a belated appeal of his open pleas and sentence. Washington provided to prison officials this motion to withdraw the postcon-viction pleading three days before the state filed its response on April 7, 2006. The lower court denied the postconviction motion without ruling on the motion to withdraw. It appears the lower court may not have been provided a copy of the mo tion to withdraw prior to ruling on the merits of the postconviction motion.
Washington was entitled to withdraw his rule 3.850 motion up to and until the lower court ruled on the merits, so long as the state did not show prejudice. See Carvalleria v. State, 675 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (citing Simon v. State, 768 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)). The state has failed to show how it would be prejudiced by the voluntary dismissal of the rule 3.850 motion. Instead, the state incorrectly contends Washington is not entitled to a belated appeal from an open plea. Whether Washington has grounds for a belated appeal is irrelevant to the instant proceeding and this opinion should not be read to indicate any decision on such a petition.
Where the state would suffer no prejudice from allowing withdrawal of a rule 3.850 motion, our supreme court has noted the denial of the motion to withdraw “constitute[s] an abuse of discretion.” Clark v. State, 491 So. 2d 545, 546 (Fla.1986). While the lower court, in the instant case, did not deny the motion to withdraw, as did the lower court in Clark, the inadvertent failure to grant such relief, when timely requested, should not be allowed to stand. Washington timely sought to withdraw his motion for postconviction relief and thus it would be an abuse of discretion to not allow the motion to be withdrawn. We remand to the lower court to grant Washington’s motion to withdraw and to dismiss his rule 3.850 motion without prejudice.
Reversed and remanded.
GUNTHER, WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Daniels v. State, 66 So. 3d 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…inson v. State, 921 So. 2d 780, 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Hansen v. State, 816 So. 2d 808, 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); see also Clark v. State, 491 So. 2d 545, 546 (Fla.1986); Carvalleria v. State, 675 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Washington v. State, 937 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). However, the process for evaluating postconviction motions changed with Spera. Spera held that when a trial court summarily denies a defendant’s motion for postconviction relief for failure to meet pleading requirements, i…
-
Hampton v. State, 949 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…al to allow defendant to revoke his motion to withdraw plea). Unless there is prejudice to the state, a rule 3.850 movant is entitled to withdraw his motion before it is ruled on. See Clark v. State, 491 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1986); Washington v. State, 937 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Hutchinson v. State, 921 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Johnson v. State, 739 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). We conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law when it did not allow Defendant to w…
-
Hardy v. State, 958 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…claims the lower court erred by failing to rule on his “Motion to Dismiss or Withdraw 3.850” prior to ruling on the merits of the motion for postconviction relief. We agree, and the State has properly conceded error. Pursuant to Washington v. State, 937 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), and Hampton v. State, 949 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), the lower court should have allowed Hardy to withdraw his rule 3.850 motion prior to a ruling on the merits, thus preserving his right to re-file the motion at a later d…
Authorities Cited
- Clark v. State, 491 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1986)
- Sterling Franklyn Stubbs v. State, 675 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Harold Ward aka Baldy Bee aka Leroy Bell aka Gary Ward aka Howard Bell v. State, 768 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Simon v. State, 768 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)