ALBERT STEVENS, JR., 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.
Florida appellate court dismissed appeal from denial of motion for extension of time to file postconviction relief, holding such orders are not final and appealable, and directing defendant to file the intended motion within sixty days.
An order denying a motion for extension of time to file a postconviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is not a final, appealable order.
[1] An order denying a motion for extension of time to file a postconviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is not a final, appealable order, an…
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 intelligenceAlbert Stevens, Jr. appealed from an order denying his motion for an extension of time to file his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule…
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 Final Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Albert Stevens, Jr., appeals from the order denying his motion for an extension of time to file his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because the order is not a final, appealable order, we dismiss the appeal. Stevens shall have sixty days after the date this opinion becomes final to file his rule 3.850 motion. The trial court can then determine the issue of timeliness and dispose of the motion on the merits, if appropriate. See Manning v. State, 28 So.3d 971, 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (holding that “when a motion for extension to file a postconviction motion is denied, the defendant should not appeal that order, but should instead file the intended motion as soon as possible, alleging the grounds for the motion to the best of the defendant’s ability and further alleging the reason why the motion is untimely”; the trial court then has discretion to dispose of the motion on the issue of timeliness or on any other dispositive issue); see also Ham v. State, 36 So.3d 189, 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (noting that the trial court’s order denying a motion for extension of time erroneously advised Ham that he could appeal that order within thirty days).
Dismissed.
DAVIS and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manuel v. Antuna, 242 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…This appeal is dismissed as from a nonfinal, nonappealable order. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A), .140(b)(1)(D) ; Stevens v. State, 57 So. 3d 960 (Fla. 2D DCA 2011). Appellant's January 16, 2018, "Motion to Dismiss Petition" is denied as moot. NORTHCUTT, CRENSHAW, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Manning v. State, 28 So. 3d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Eyleen Caraballo v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 28 So. 3d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Jennard HAM v. State, 36 So. 3d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)