LLOYD CURTIS, 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.
Lloyd Curtis appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw a guilty plea under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i). The court reversed, finding that the postconviction court failed to properly address Curtis's timeliness argument based on the mailbox rule and the presumption that the certificate of service date controls filing date.
The motion was timely filed. The postconviction court erred in summarily denying the motion without addressing the timeliness argument. The date reflected on the certificate of service is presumed to be the filing date under the mailbox rule, and the postconviction court must reconsider timeliness and rule on the merits if appropriate.
[1] A motion to withdraw a plea under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i) must be filed within thirty days after the rendition of the sentence.
[2] Under the mailbox rule, the date reflected on the certificate of service is presumed to be the date on which a document is filed, absent a clear indication otherwise.
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 date reflected on the certificate of service is presumed to be the date on which the document is filed”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for determining filing date when physical delivery to court is delayed but certificate of service shows an earlier date.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCurtis submitted a motion to withdraw his plea to officials at Manatee County Jail on June 2, 2011, fewer than thirty days after his May 19, 2011 sent…
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 Mailbox Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Lloyd Curtis appeals the summary denial of his motion to withdraw plea filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(0- We reverse the postconviction court’s denial and remand for further proceedings.
A motion to withdraw plea under rule 3.170(0 must be filed within thirty days after rendition of the sentence. According to Curtis, he provided his motion to officials at Manatee County Jail on June 2, 2011, fewer than thirty days after his May 19, 2011, sentencing. However, the trial court did not receive the motion until November 1, 2011, when Curtis attached it to a letter directed to the clerk of the circuit court. Curtis sent this letter only after a notice of inquiry, filed on August 18, 2011, failed to elicit a ruling on his motion. Curtis has maintained that no tracking mechanism was in place at Manatee County Jail at the time he first submitted his rule 3.170(i) motion, and therefore, the only means of dating the motion is the certificate of service, which reflects a June 2, 2011, filing. See Thompson v. State, 761 So.2d 324, 325 (Fla.2000). Based on the date on the certificate of service, and pursuant to the mailbox rule, Curtis claimed that the circuit court should have deemed his motion timely and considered it on the merits.
The postconviction court denied Curtis’s motion to withdraw plea, finding that it was without jurisdiction to consider the motion and that the motion, as filed, could not be construed as one pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Gafford v. State, 783 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (“Failure to file a *57motion to withdraw the plea within BO days waives the issue for appellate review, and the defendant is limited to filing a motion pursuant to [rule 3.850].”). The postcon-viction court concluded by offering Curtis an opportunity to amend his claim and refile it pursuant to the requirements of rule 3.850. In so doing, the postconviction court failed to provide any support or explanation for its apparent finding that Curtis’s argument for timeliness was merit-less. However, absent a clear indication otherwise, “the date reflected on the certificate of service is presumed to be the date on which the document is filed.” See Bulley v. State, 857 So.2d 237, 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing Thompson, 761 So.2d at 326); see also Fla. R.App. P. 9.420(a)(2).
Therefore, we reverse the denial of Curtis’s motion and remand for the postconviction court to reconsider the issue of timeliness and, if appropriate, rule upon the merits of the motion.
Reversed and remanded.
KHOUZAM and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reashod Rosier v. State, 144 So. 3d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…therwise, the date reflected on the certificate of service of a pro se inmate’s document is presumed to be the date on which the document was filed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.420(a)(2); Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324, 326 (Fla.2000); Curtis v. State, 106 So. 3d 56, 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Because Rosier’s amended rule 3.850 motion contained a certificate of service showing that it was handed over for mailing on September 30, 2008, and nothing in the record suggests otherwise, the amended motion is presumed to…
Authorities Cited
- Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2000)
- Gafford v. State, 783 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Bulley v. State, 857 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)