CARLILE BRELAND, 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.
Appellant sought postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 based on ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The trial court erred in denying the motion as untimely, and the appellate court reversed and remanded for consideration of the merits.
The two-year filing period for a Rule 3.850 motion commences upon issuance of the mandate in direct appeal proceedings, not upon the expiration of 30 days from initial sentencing. Because Appellant's motion was filed within two years of December 12, 2008, when the mandate issued, the motion was timely and the trial court erred in denying it on timeliness grounds.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 must be filed within two years after the judgment and sentence become final.
[2] The two-year period for filing a postconviction relief motion does not commence until the issuance of the mandate following direct appellate review.
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“the two-year period in the rule does not commence until both the conviction and the sentence become final, which occurs upon issuance of the mandate in the direct review proceedings”
Establishes the controlling rule for when the Rule 3.850 filing period begins
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn November 18, 2005, Appellant was convicted and sentenced on drug-related offenses pursuant to a plea agreement. On direct appeal, the court vacated…
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 Finality Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of an order denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The state concedes, and we agree, that the trial court erred in denying the motion as untimely. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for consideration of Appellant’s claims on the merits.
On November 18, 2005, pursuant to a negotiated plea, Appellant was convicted and sentenced on several drug-related offenses. On direct appeal, this court vacated his sentences and remanded for re-sentencing in accordance with the plea agreement. Breland v. State, 951 So.2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Appellant’s new sentences were affirmed without opinion, Breland v. State, 995 So.2d 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (table), and the mandate issued on December 12, 2008.
On September 8, 2009, Appellant filed his motion for postconviction relief. In his motion and its “addendum” filed July 19, 2010, Appellant raised four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court summarily denied the motion as untimely after concluding that it was filed more than two years after Appellant’s convictions became final. The court reasoned that the convictions were final on December 18, 2005, thirty days after they were entered, because Appellant sought review of his sentences on direct appeal but did not challenge his convictions.
*327A rule 3.850 motion for postcon-viction relief must be filed within two years after the judgment and sentence become final, subject to certain narrow exceptions. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). But the two-year period in the rule does not commence until both the conviction and the sentence become final, which occurs upon issuance of the mandate in the direct review proceedings. See Pierce v. State, 875 So.2d 726, 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Snipes v. State, 843 So.2d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Cook v. State, 596 So.2d 483, 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Indeed, until the direct appeal is concluded, the trial court is without jurisdiction to consider a rule 3.850 motion. See Ward v. Dugger, 508 So.2d 778, 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); see also Snipes, 843 So.2d at 1044 (rejecting an interpretation of rule 3.850 identical to that adopted by the trial court below because such an interpretation could result in the defendant forfeiting his post-conviction rights by exercising the right to appeal his sentence).
In this case, the direct review proceedings concerning Appellant’s judgment and sentence concluded on December 12, 2008, upon the issuance of the mandate in the appeal after his resentencing. Because Appellant’s rule 3.850 motion was filed within two years of that date, the motion was timely and the trial court erred in denying the motion on timeliness grounds. Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand for the trial court to consider Appellant’s postconviction claims on the merits.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
ROBERTS, CLARK and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reyneldon J. Davis v. State, 198 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…ay period. See Bailey v. State, 93 So. 3d 518, 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). A criminal proceeding is concluded when, inter alia, the mandate issues from the appellate court on a direct appeal of a defendant’s judgment and sentence. See Breland v. State, 58 So. 3d 326, 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Ward v. Dugger, 508 So. 2d 778, 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Here, the trial court reversibly erred in summarily denying the defendant’s motion for rehearing because the defendant’s November 2012 motion for the return of prope…
-
Scotty Bartek v. State, 198 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…2d 778, 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (interpreting the phrase “become final” in rule 3.850(b) as being the date mandate issued). Accord Beaty v. State, 701 So. 2d 856, 857 (Fla.1997); Lewis v. State, 196 So. 3d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Breland v. State, 58 So. 3d 326, 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). We have reviewed Bartek’s other claims of error and find them to be without merit. AFFIRMED. TORPY and LAMBERT, JJ., concur. . Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to rule 9.030(b)(1)(A) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Pro…
-
Rollin Monestime v. State, 220 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…in that sixty-day period. A criminal proceeding is concluded when the mandate issues from the appellate court on a direct appeal of a defendant’s judgment and sentence. See Davis v. State, 198 So. 3d 1070, 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Breland v. State, 58 So. 3d 326, 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Ward v. Dugger, 508 So. 2d 778, 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). As more than sixty days have elapsed since the mandate issued in Monestime’s direct criminal appeal in 2010, the trial court’s order citing to the untimeliness of the…
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
- Ward v. Dugger, 508 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Snipes v. State, 843 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Vargas v. State, 875 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Hillsborough Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Alexsis Risk Mgmt. v. Special Disability Tr. Fund, 596 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Carlisle Breland v. State, 951 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)