JEAN NORVILUS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
The defendant, Jean Norvilus, appeals a trial court order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because it was untimely. Norvilus pled guilty to second-degree murder and the trial court sentenced him to a twenty-five-year minimum mandatory sentence on June 16, 2008. On July 15, 2008, Norvilus submitted his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the South Florida Reception Center for mailing. The clerk of the court filed the motion on July 25, 2008. In its order, the trial court stated the defendant’s motion was filed on July 25, 2008, and denied it as untimely.
When a pro se inmate files a motion, the mailbox rule applies, in which the motion is deemed to be filed at the moment the inmate loses control over the document by entrusting its further delivery or processing to agents of state. Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614, 617 (Fla.1992). Thus, Norvi-lus’s motion is deemed to be filed on the date he handed the motion to the South Florida Reception Center, which was July 15, 2008. Because Norvilus filed within thirty days of the date of sentencing, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i), we reverse for further proceedings on the merits.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leggett v. State, 34 So. 3d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…llowed Zeigler v. State, 18 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), and certified direct conflict with Montgomery v. State, — So. 3d -, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D360 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 12, 2009), review granted, 11 So. 3d 943 (Fla.2009). See also Bonilla v. State, 23 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (certifying direct conflict with Montgomery). Accordingly, we deny the petition but certify direct conflict with Montgomery. Petition denied; direct conflict certified. * The case went to the jury in February 2006.…1 / 2
-
Mynor Solano v. State, 35 So. 3d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…—. This court has certified conflict with Montgomery, and has instead followed the Second District’s decision in Zeigler v. State, 18 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Valdes-Pino v. State, 23 So. 3d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also Bonilla v. State, 23 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Assuming arguendo that Montgomery is correctly decided, the defendant would not be entitled to any relief under the fundamental error doctrine. That is so because the defense requested, and the trial judge gave, a special instru…
-
Rodrigo Bonilla v. State, 75 So. 3d 233 (Fla. 2011)…LABARGA, J. This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Bonilla v. State, 23 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). The district court certified that its decision is in direct conflict with the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Montgomery v. State, 70 So. 3d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4),…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Thurston McCLAIN, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)