SEAN S. PIGGOTT, 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.
Piggott appeals the summary dismissal of his rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief on the ground that it was filed outside the two-year time limit. The court reverses, holding that the trial court erred in refusing to allow Piggott an evidentiary hearing to demonstrate that the limitations period should be tolled due to lack of access to Florida legal materials while imprisoned out of state.
The trial court erred in summarily dismissing Piggott's rule 3.850 motion without affording him an opportunity to establish predicate facts showing that the limitations period was tolled due to lack of access to Florida legal materials while imprisoned out of state. The case is reversed and remanded for such a hearing.
[1] A trial court is bound to follow decisions of Florida District Courts of Appeal from outside its district in the absence of a conflict, even if the appellate court has no…
[2] A prisoner incarcerated out-of-state without access to Florida legal materials or reasonable alternatives may be entitled to tolling of the limitations period for filing…
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“prisoner held in out-of-state facility without either legal reference materials of Florida or reasonable alternatives is deprived of access to Florida courts in violation of his constitutional rights”
Establishes the legal principle from Demps that out-of-state incarceration without access to Florida legal materials may toll the limitations period for rule 3.850 motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePiggott was convicted in Florida in December 2002 and sentenced to two consecutive life terms, but was not delivered to Florida authorities to serve t…
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 Rule 3.850 Motion For Post-Conviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant’s Florida conviction became final in December 2002. He had been *299sentenced thereunder to two life terms consecutive to a conviction in Massachusetts he was already serving. He completed his Massachusetts sentence in August 2006 and was delivered to authorities a few days later to begin serving his Florida sentence. Two years later, under rule 3.850 he filed a motion for relief from the conviction asserting several grounds. The trial judge summarily dismissed the motion on the basis that it was temporally barred, having been filed more than two years after his Florida conviction became final in 2002.1
On appeal from that summary dismissal, he argues that he was entitled to a hearing to show that, owing to the lack of access to Florida legal materials, the time limit for rule 3.850 relief was tolled while he was incarcerated out of state. He relies on Demps v. State, 696 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (prisoner held in out-of-state facility without either legal reference materials of Florida or reasonable alternatives is deprived of access to Florida courts in violation of his constitutional rights). Although not cited by defendant, we also take notice of Ramsey v. State, 965 So.2d 854 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), holding that the trial court should afford defendant the opportunity to show that the limitations period is deemed tolled while he was held out-of-state without access to Florida legal materials. See also Ruiz v. State, 3 So.3d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (same).
This district has not adopted Demps. The advance of technology, with its increased access to many kinds of materials and information, raises questions about its continuing validity.2 Still, the trial judge was bound to follow Demps even though this court had not expressed itself on the issue. See Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665, 666 (Fla.1992) (in absence of conflict, decisions of Florida District Courts of Appeal represent law of Florida unless overruled by Florida Supreme Court; where only appellate case on point is from outside district in which trial court is located, trial court is bound to follow that decision). At this point, without adopting Demps as still reliable for this district, we reverse and remand for the trial court to allow defendant to establish predicate facts for his alleged avoidance of the limitations bar as in Demps.
Reversed.
POLEN and DAMOORGIAN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Van Wilson v. State, 105 So. 3d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…claims did not arise until he was sentenced for the federal charge. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the circuit court to allow the defendant to establish predicate facts to avoid rule 3.850’s two-year time limitation. See Piggott v. State, 14 So. 3d 298, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (declining to adopt Demps, but remanding to allow the defendant to establish predicate facts to avoid rule 3.850’s two-year time limitation). Reversed and Remanded. WARNER, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.…
-
LEE v. State, 123 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…dice to the appellant filing a postconviction motion which includes predicate facts on which he seeks to avoid the time bars of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Wilson v. State, 105 So. 3d 667, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Piggott v. State, 14 So. 3d 298, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). WARNER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
-
Seraphin v. State, 192 So. 3d 675 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)….850 motion and remanding for the postconviction court to provide an opportunity to amend and to determine whether the time for the movant to file a rule 3.850 motion was tolled during his incarceration in federal prison); see also Piggott v. State, 14 So. 3d 298, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (reversing summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion and remanding for the postconviction court to determine whether the movant had access, including electronic access, to Florida law while incarcerated in Massachusetts). [*678]…
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
- Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992)
- Demps v. State, 696 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Howell M. Ramsey v. State, 965 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Ruiz v. State, 3 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)