DAVID B. LAWSON, 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.
David Lawson appealed the denial of his request for a ruling on a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion. The court reversed, holding that under the mailbox rule, a pro se inmate's motion is deemed filed when entrusted to prison officials for mailing, even if it never physically reached the clerk's office, and remanded for the postconviction court to consider the motion on its merits.
Under the mailbox rule, a pro se inmate's motion is deemed filed when the inmate entrusts it to prison officials for delivery or processing, regardless of whether it physically reaches the clerk's office. Accordingly, Lawson's motion was timely filed and must be considered on the merits.
[1] A pro se inmate's document is deemed filed when the inmate entrusts the document to prison officials for mailing, pursuant to the mailbox rule.
[2] A postconviction court should consider a motion on its merits when the motion is deemed timely filed under the mailbox rule, even if it was not physically filed with the…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“under the mailbox rule, a pro se inmate's document is deemed filed when the inmate entrusts the document to prison officials for further delivery or processing.”
Establishes the governing legal standard for when a pro se inmate's filings are considered timely filed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLawson pleaded guilty on June 25, 2009, and was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. He filed a Rule 3.850 motion on March 8, 2010, which he provided…
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.
David B. Lawson appeals the order denying his motion requesting a ruling on a motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for the postconviction court to consider the rule 3.850 motion on its merits.
On June 25, 2009, Mr. Lawson entered a plea to several offenses, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. Although he apparently did not appeal his judgment and sentence, he filed several motions under rule 3.800(a) and rule 3.850, the denials of which were affirmed on appeal. On March 27, 2012, Mr. Lawson filed a motion requesting a ruling on a particular rule 3.850 motion on which he claimed never to have received a ruling. The rule 3.850 motion, which was attached to the motion requesting a ruling, bears a certificate of service dated March 8, 2010, that is in substantial compliance with the example provided for pro se inmates in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.420(d)(1). Moreover, stamped on the *1229first page of the motion is the correctional institution’s certificate that Mr. Lawson provided the motion to prison officials for mailing on March 8, 2010.
The postconviction court denied Mr. Lawson’s request for a ruling because the March 8, 2010, motion had never been physically filed with the clerk of the circuit court. However, “under the mailbox rule, a pro se inmate’s document is deemed filed when the inmate entrusts the document to prison officials for further delivery or processing.” Pagan v. State, 899 So.2d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); see Griffin v. Sistuenck, 816 So.2d 600, 601 (Fla.2002) (“Under the mailbox rule, a notice is deemed filed when it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing.”). Mr. Lawson presented the postconviction court "with a motion that was deemed timely filed but had not, for whatever reason, reached the office of the circuit court clerk. The post-conviction court could have considered the motion on the merits and should do so on remand. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Mr. Lawson’s request to consider his rule 3.850 motion.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
KHOUZAM and SLEET, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Giannetta Bailey v. State, 136 So. 3d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…accordance with rule 3.800(c). See id.; see also Childers v. State, 972 So. 2d 307, 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Thus, a rule 3.800(c) motion is considered filed when entrusted to prison officials for further delivery or processing. See Lawson v. State, 107 So. 3d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Because Ms. Bailey delivered her rule 3.800(c) motion to prison officials before the sixty-day period expired, it was timely filed under the mailbox rule. Kwapil, 44 So. 3d at 230. Ergo, the circuit court departed from the…
-
Carter v. State, 248 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…er 29, 2015. Although this motion was not docketed with the trial court, it is considered filed on the date that it was conveyed to prison officials for mailing. See Padro- Guerrero v. State, 123 So. 3d 670, 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Lawson v. State, 107 So. 3d 1228, 1228-29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). This September 29, 2015, rule 3.850 motion was also referenced in the amended rule 3.850 motion, which expressed the intention to add claims to a pending motion and began numbering its claims at ground five. Under these…
-
Antunez v. State, 135 So. 3d 329 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…d filed on the date the inmate relinquishes control of the document to State officials for delivery.). We therefore reverse the order denying Antunez’s motion for postconviction relief and remand for consideration on the merits. See Lawson v. State, 107 So. 3d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). REVERSED AND REMANDED. GRIFFIN, SAWAYA and BERGER, JJ., concur.…
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
- Griffin v. D.R. Sistuenck, 816 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2002)
- Pagan v. State, 899 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)