RICHARD ALFRED TASKER, 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.
Richard Tasker appealed the trial court's summary denial of his postconviction DNA testing motion on timeliness grounds. The appellate court found the motion was timely filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 and reversed, remanding for the trial court to consider the motion on its merits.
Tasker's motion was timely filed. The trial court erred by focusing only on the 4-year deadline and overlooking the alternative October 1, 2005 deadline. The order of summary denial is reversed and the case is remanded for the trial court to consider the motion on its merits.
[1] A motion for postconviction DNA testing is timely if filed by the later of four years after conviction affirmation or a specified later date, such as October 1, 2005.
[2] The mailbox rule applies to the filing date of postconviction motions, including motions for DNA testing.
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“within 4 years following the date the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal ... or by October 1, 2005, whichever occurs later.”
The text of rule 3.853(d)(1)(A) establishing the two-part deadline for DNA testing motions that the trial court failed to consider fully.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTasker was convicted in 1987 of burglary of a dwelling, sexual battery, and attempted robbery. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal on Novem…
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 For Postconviction Dna Testing cases and more on FLexlaw
LAWSON, J.
Richard Alfred Tasker appeals from the summary denial of his motion for postcon-vietion DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. The trial court denied Tasker’s motion as untimely, and therefore did not address the merits of the motion. We find that Tasker’s motion was timely filed, reverse the order of summary denial, and remand with instructions that the trial court consider the merits of Tasker’s motion.
The version of rule 3.853 under which Tasker filed his motion required, in relevant part, that a defendant’s motion for postconviction DNA testing be filed “within 4 years following the date the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal ... or by October 1, 2005, whichever occurs later.” Tasker’s 1987 convictions for burglary of a dwelling, sexual battery, and attempted robbery were affirmed by this court on November 3, 1987. See Tasker v. State, 515 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (table). Under the “mailbox rule,” 1 his postconviction motion for DNA testing was filed on September 27, 2005. In denying Tasker’s motion, the trial court appears to have focused only on the 4-year deadline, overlooking the last clause of subsection (d)(1)(A), which allowed Tasker until October 1, 2005 to file his motion. However, the confusion could have just as easily (and, quite understandably) been caused by misapplication of the mailbox rule, or by the many amendments to the deadline set forth in rule 3.8S3.2
In any event, because Tasker’s motion was timely filed, and appears to be legally sufficient, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand with directions that the trial court consider Tasker’s motion on the merits.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur. . See Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla.1992).
. The original deadline was October 1, 2003. The deadline was then extended, in turn, to October 1, 2005; July 1, 2006; and, October 1, 2006. Under the most recent version of rule 3.853, the deadline for filing postconviction DNA motions has been removed altogether. See In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853(d), 938 So. 2d 977 (Fla.2006).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Thurston McCLAIN, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- In re Amendments TO Fla. Rule OF Crim. Procedure 3.853(d), 938 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2006)