JOSE G. PADRO-GUERRERO, 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.
Jose Padro-Guerrero appeals from summary denial of his postconviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The appellate court affirmed denial of the original motion but reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to rule on a timely-filed supplemental motion raising additional grounds for relief.
The trial court properly denied the original postconviction relief motion on three of the six grounds, but erred by failing to rule on the supplemental motion that was timely filed and pending before the final order. Because the supplemental motion was filed within the two-year statutory period and before the trial court's final order, the trial court was required to consider it.
[1] A trial court must consider additional claims raised in a supplemental motion for postconviction relief if the motion is filed within the statutory time limit and before…
[2] A defendant should file a motion for rehearing to bring to the trial court's attention its failure to rule on a timely filed supplemental motion for postconviction relief…
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“As long as the two-year limitation period has not expired, the trial court must consider any additional claims raised prior to the court's final order on a rule 3.850 motion.”
Establishes the legal obligation of trial courts to consider timely-filed supplemental or amended postconviction relief motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePadro-Guerrero was convicted in 2011 of trafficking in methamphetamine. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. He filed a timely postconviction…
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 Timeliness Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
Jose Padro-Guerrero appeals from the order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In 2011, Padro-Guerrero was found guilty of trafficking in twenty-eight grams or more of methamphetamine. This Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. Pa-dro-Guerrero subsequently filed a timely *671motion for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850. Initially, the trial court rejected three of the six alleged grounds for relief and ordered the State to file a response to the remaining three grounds. Following receipt of that response, the trial court summarily denied the remaining three grounds. While the original motion was pending, Padro-Guerrero filed a supplemental rule 3.850 motion asserting two additional grounds for relief. The trial court did not rule on the supplemental motion.
We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of the original motion for post-conviction relief without comment. The more problematic issue, however, is the trial court’s failure to rule on Padro-Guerrero’s supplemental motion. Generally, a defendant may file a rule 3.850 motion within two years of the date that the judgment and sentence become final. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b). As long as the two-year limitation period has not expired, the trial court must consider any additional claims raised prior to the court’s final order on a rule 3.850 motion. See Gaskin v. State, 737 So.2d 509 (Fla.1999) (holding that trial court erred in denying defendant’s amended rule 3.850 motion, which was filed within statutory time limit and before trial court ruled on original rule 3.850 motion, on the ground that new claims set forth in amended motion were procedurally barred), receded from on other grounds, Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579 (Fla.2004); McAbee v. State, 873 So.2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (remanding for consideration of two supplemental issues that trial court failed to rule on in final order denying postconviction relief).
It appears that Padro-Guerrero’s supplemental motion fell through the cracks and the trial court was not aware of its existence. It would seem that upon receipt of the order denying the original motion, it should have been clear to Pa-dro-Guerrero that the trial court had failed to consider his supplemental motion. The better course would have been for Padro-Guerrero to bring this oversight to the trial court’s attention in the form of a motion for rehearing. However, since the supplemental motion was timely filed and pending before the final order denying the original petition was entered, we must remand this ease for consideration of the two grounds raised in that motion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
TORPY, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carter v. State, 248 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…ions, believing it to be a duplicate. stamp dated September 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…
-
Dugan v. State, 376 So. 3d 718 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…However, because the postconviction court failed to address the allegations set forth in claims 1 and 4, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to consider those two claims and to issue an appropriate order. See Padro-Guerrero v. State, 123 So. 3d 670, 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). On remand, the postconviction court must either conduct an evidentiary hearing on those two claims or attach the records that conclusively refute the claims. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f). AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in…
-
Damien O. Caldwell v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…barred, when the motion was filed within the time limit under the rule and before the trial court had ruled on the original motion), receded from in part on other grounds, Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579, 582–83 (Fla. 2004); Padro-Guerrero v. State, 123 So. 3d 670, 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“As long as the two-year limitation period [of rule 3.850] has not expired, the trial court must consider any additional claims raised prior to the court’s final order on a rule 3.850 motion.”). In a footnote contained in…
Authorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2004)
- Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1999)
- McABEE v. State, 873 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)