HENRY N. HALL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
HENRY N. HALL, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
86 So. 3d 590
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2012)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Appellant, Henry N. Hall [“Hall”], seeks review of the trial court’s denial of his rule 3.850 motion and amended 3.850 motion. Denial was based on a finding of untimeliness. We affirm in part and reverse in part. This Court’s mandate in the direct appeal of Hall’s judgment and sentence was issued on September 26, 2007, making the original post-conviction motion, filed on September 15, 2009, timely. Rosado v. State, 654 So.2d 623 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). That motion must, therefore, be considered on its merits. The “amended” motion, which added a new ground, was correctly dismissed as untimely.
*591AFFIRMED in part; and REVERSED in part.
PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boatwright v. State, 235 So. 3d 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…ntimely for not being filed within two years of the judgment and sentence becoming final as required by rule 3.850(b). Appellant’s motion was timely because it was filed within two years of this court’s mandate on direct appeal. See Hall v. State, 86 So. 3d 590, 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (citing Rosado v. State, 654 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)). Typically, we would reverse the order on appeal and remand for the lower court to consider the merits of the motion. However, to do so here would serve no purpose…
Authorities Cited
- Rosado v. State, 654 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)