SHANE G. MAYO, 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 appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of Mayo's postconviction relief motion as untimely, holding that the motion was timely filed under the mailbox rule when delivered to prison officials for mailing on December 18, 2006, the deadline date.
A postconviction relief motion is timely filed under the mailbox rule when delivered to prison officials for mailing on the deadline date, even if that date falls on a Sunday.
[1] A prisoner's postconviction relief motion is timely filed under the mailbox rule when delivered to prison officials for mailing on the deadline date, even if that date is…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Under the mailbox rule, the appellant's motion was deemed filed on December 18, 2006, when the appellant handed it over to prison officials for mailing.”
Explaining the application of the mailbox rule to establish timeliness of the postconviction relief motion.
Shane Mayo's judgment and sentence became final on December 17, 2004. He had until December 18, 2006 (two years later, adjusted for Sunday) to file a …
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 Timeliness Of Filing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Shane Mayo, appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for extension of time and appointment of counsel, his motion for postconviction relief, and his motion to proceed without prepayment of court costs and fees. The trial court denied the appellant’s motion for postconviction relief as untimely and denied his motion to proceed without prepayment of court costs and fees as moot. We disagree and reverse. Because we find the appellant’s motion for postconviction relief was timely filed, we decline to address the trial court’s denial of his motion for extension of time and appointment of counsel.
The appellant’s judgment and sentence became final on December 17, 2004, when this Court issued its mandate to the trial court. The appellant had until December 17, 2006, two years after this Court issued its mandate, to file a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. However, because December 17, 2006, fell on a Sunday, the appellant had until December 18, 2006, to file such motion. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.040. Under the mailbox rule, the appellant’s motion was deemed filed on December 18, 2006, when the appellant handed it over to prison officials for mailing. See Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla.1992). The appellant’s motion was therefore timely filed. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for reconsideration of the appellant’s motion for postcon-viction relief and his motion to proceed without prepayment of court costs and fees.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BARFIELD, POLSTON, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bailey v. State, 93 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…r timely filed a prior motion that was never ruled upon. This prior motion does not appear on the trial court’s docket; nevertheless if it was timely provided to prison officials it is deemed [*520] filed pursuant to the mailbox rule. Mayo v. State, 977 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). As such, if the prior motion and May 2, 2007 date stamp are authentic, Petitioner’s current claim should not be denied as untimely. See Forbes v. State, 826 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2002). Therefore, we reverse and remand for a…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Thurston McCLAIN, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)