JASON SCOTT DOWNS, 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.
Jason Downs appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition seeking permission to file a belated postconviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(3). The appellate court reversed, holding that the amended rule allowing counsel neglect exceptions should be applied prospectively, giving petitioners two years from the rule's July 1, 2011 effective date to file such claims.
The court held that rule 3.850(b)(3), as amended, should be applied prospectively such that the two-year time limit for filing a habeas petition under the counsel neglect exception runs from July 1, 2011. Therefore, Downs's petition filed March 13, 2013 was timely, and he was entitled to a hearing on his claim.
[1] Procedural rules are applied prospectively unless otherwise provided.
[2] A rule amendment providing specific time frames, when applied prospectively to pending cases, requires the new time frames to run from the effective date of the rule.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Unless specifically provided otherwise, rules of procedure are to be applied prospectively.”
Establishes the primary rule governing application of amended procedural rules to pending cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDowns was convicted of two sex offenses in 2001 and his conviction was affirmed on appeal with the mandate issued August 12, 2002. He had until August…
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 Laches cases and more on FLexlaw
Jason Downs appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, wherein he sought permission to file a belated motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(3).1 He argues the trial court erred when it summarily denied his motion as untimely. We agree and reverse.
In 2001, Downs was convicted of two sex offenses. On appeal, this Court affirmed his judgment and sentence. Downs v. State, 823 So.2d 789 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The mandate issued on August 12, 2002, which gave Downs until August 12, 2004, to file a timely rule 3.850 motion.
Eleven years later, on March 13, 2013, Downs filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting the trial court to allow him to file a belated motion for postconviction relief on the basis that appellate counsel agreed to file a postconviction motion, but failed to do so. The trial court denied the petition finding:
Rule 3.850(b)(3) provides for an additional exception to the two year time limit where “the defendant retained counsel to timely file a 3.850 motion and counsel, through neglect, failed to file the motion.” However, the rule goes on to state that, “[a] claim based on this exception shall not be filed more than 2 years after the expiration of the time for filing a motion for postconviction relief.” The time for filing a motion for postcon-viction relief expired on August 12, 2004. Therefore, the time for filing a 3.850 motion under this exception expired on August 12, 2006. The Defendant’s motion is untimely.
The two-year time limit was added to the exception effective July 1, 2011. Prior to that date, a claim based on the exception found in rule 3.850(b)(3) could be raised at any time. Thus, had Downs filed his petition on June 30, 2011, he would have been provided a hearing. However, because his petition was not filed until 2013, the judge denied it as untimely.2
Unless specifically provided otherwise, rules of procedure are to be applied pro*522spectively. See Pearlstein v. King, 610 So.2d 445, 446 (Fla.1992). Prospective application of a rule to pending cases, where the rule is amended to provide specific time frames, would require the new time frames to run from the effective date of the rule. Id. Here, giving prospective effect to rule 3.850(b)(3), as amended, would provide two years from the effective date of the rule, i.e., two years from July 1, 2011, to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging counsel failed to timely file a motion for postconviction relief.
Because Downs’ petition was filed prior to July 1, 2013, it was timely. Accordingly, he was entitled to a hearing on his claim. See Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So.2d 931, 934 (Fla.1999). The order denying the petition is, therefore, reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Our reversal, however, is without prejudice to the State to raise the claim of laches. See McCray v. State, 699 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1997); Brimage v. State, 937 So.2d 230, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Hayes v. State, 896 So.2d 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORPY, C.J., SAWAYA and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Downs v. State, 227 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…SNAUGLE, JJ., concur. . In 2014, this Court reversed the summary denial of Downs's petition to file a belated motion for postconviction relief, finding it was timely filed pursuant to the prospective application of rule 3.850(b)(3). Downs v. State, 135 So. 3d 521 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). The postconviction court subsequently granted the petition, . The "sandwich” argument was the defense’s ability to give first and last closing argument, if the defense presented no evidence; the defense retained the "sandwich”…
-
State v. Downs (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…). In 2013, Downs filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking to file a belated motion for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850(b)(3). The denial of the petition was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. See Downs v. State, 135 So. 3d 521, 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). On June 13, 2014, Downs filed his first postconviction motion; among the claims he asserted was that his trial counsel misadvised him to reject a plea offer made by the State, Downs v. State, 227 So. 3d 694, 695 (Fla. 5th…
-
Hartsfield v. State, 139 So. 3d 948 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…im that he or she missed the deadline to file a rule 3.850 motion because his or her attorney had agreed to file the motion but failed to do so in a timely manner.”). Hartsfield’s petition should not have been denied as untimely. See Downs v. State, 135 So. 3d 521 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (holding that petition filed within two years of the effective date of amendment to rule 3.850(b)(3) was timely but recognizing the State could raise a claim of laches). However, Hartsfield’s petition did not contain the oath req…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1999)
- Ervin McCRAY v. State, 699 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 1997)
- Leslie Pearlstein, M.D. v. King, 610 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 1992)
- Brimage v. State, 937 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- State v. Downs (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)
- Hayes v. State, 896 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Fuzzell v. E.I. DuPONT DE Nemours & Co., Inc., 987 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)