JASON EARLS, 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.
The court held that the trial court improperly denied the appellant's motion for post-conviction relief as untimely.
Appellant was sentenced for armed robbery and did not file a direct appeal. His motion for post-conviction relief was filed within the time limit unde…
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 Mailbox Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because the trial court improperly denied the appellant’s motion as untimely, we reverse.
On August 25, 2004, pursuant to a plea of nolo contendere, the appellant was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment followed by two years’ probation for armed robbery with a firearm. He did not file a direct appeal of his judgment and sentence. The certificate of service on the appellant’s motion for postconviction relief reflects that the motion was placed in the hands of prison officials for mailing on September 22, 2006. The trial court denied the motion as untimely.
The denial of the appellant’s motion as untimely was improper. The two-year time limitation for filing motions for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 does not begin to run until appellate proceedings have concluded and the court issues a mandate or thirty days after the trial court enters its order if no direct appeal is filed. See Gust v. State, 535 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Because the appellant did not file a direct appeal, his conviction and sentence became final and the two-year time limitation began to run on September 24, 2004. Under the mailbox rule, the date that a motion is placed into the hands of prison officials for filing is the date that the motion is considered filed. Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324 (Fla.2000). Accordingly, the appellant’s motion was timely filed on September 22, 2006. We therefore reverse the trial court’s summary denial of the appellant’s motion for postconviction relief as untimely, and remand for the trial court to consider the motion on the merits.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BENTON, HAWKES, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delancy v. Tucker, 88 So. 3d 1036 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…e deemed a rule 3.850 motion, the court correctly determined it would be time-barred and declined to transfer it to the sentencing court. Appellant’s 2007 judgment and sentence became final long before he filed the 2011 petition. See Earls v. State, 958 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Thus, Appellant missed the two-year filing deadline in rule 3.850(b), which is a bar that generally cannot be waived. Jamison v. State, 73 So. 3d 317, 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Meyer v. State, 570 So. 2d 1001, 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1…
-
Johnson v. State, 969 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…er than 10 days after ... the date of filing of the judgment in a non-jury action.” And, finally, under the “mailbox rule,” a prisoner’s pleading is deemed filed the date that it is placed in the hands of prison officials. See, e.g., Earls v. State, 958 So. 2d 1153, 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Application of the foregoing rules to the instant case results in the conclusion that the instant notice of appeal (filed on March 20, 2007) was untimely as Johnson’s motion for rehearing (filed on February 8, 2007) was…
-
Davis v. State, 198 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…e, 761 So. 2d 324, 326 (FIa.2000); see also Johnson v. State, 969 So. 2d 402, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“[Hinder the ‘mailbox rule,’ a prisoner’s pleading is deemed filed the date that it is placed in the hands of prison officials.”); Earls v. State, 958 So. 2d 1153, 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (same). Accordingly, Davis’s response was timely filed when he presented the document to prison officials for mailing within the thirty day window, and the trial court incorrectly concluded that he had failed to timely res…
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
- Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2000)
- Gust v. State, 535 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)