MATTHEW THOMPSON, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed dismissal of postconviction motion as untimely, holding that a pro se inmate's Rule 3.850 motion is timely filed under the mailbox rule when placed in prison officials' hands for mailing on the deadline date, even without a certificate of service.
A pro se inmate's Rule 3.850 motion is deemed timely filed under the mailbox rule when the inmate places it in the hands of prison officials for mailing on the deadline date, as evidenced by the correctional institution's date-stamp.
[1] When a pro se inmate's postconviction motion lacks a certificate of service, the date-stamp on the face of the motion showing placement in prison officials' hands for mai…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“a pro se inmate's rule 3.850 motion is deemed filed under the 'mailbox rule' when the inmate places the motion in the hands of prison officials for mailing”
Haag v. State standard for determining timeliness of pro se inmate filings
Matthew Thompson filed a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion after receiving a forty-five-day extension. The motion lacked a certificate of service but b…
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 Computation Of Time For Filing cases and more on FLexlaw
Matthew Thompson appeals the postcon-viction court’s dismissal of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 as untimely. We reverse.
The postconviction court’s order rendered on February 6, 2013, granted Mr. Thompson a forty-five-day extension of time to file his rule 3.850 motion. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.050. The forty-fifth day following this order was Saturday, March 23, 2013, so Mr. Thompson had until Monday, March 25, 2013, to file his rule 3.850 motion. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.040; Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.514(a)(1)(C). Although Mr. Thompson’s motion does not contain a certificate of service, the summary record shows that his rule 3.850 motion was timely filed since the correctional institution’s date-stamp on the face of the motion demonstrates that he placed the motion in the hands of prison officials for mailing on March 25, 2013. See Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614, 617 (Fla.1992) (holding that a pro se inmate’s rule 3.850 motion is deemed filed under the “mailbox rule” when the inmate places the motion in the hands of prison officials for mailing); Westley v. State, 903 So.2d 312, 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“[Wlhen a document lacks a certificate of service, as in this case, then the date on the face of the motion is controlling.” (citing Haag, 591 So.2d at 617 n. 3)). Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of Mr. Thompson’s motion as untimely and remand for consideration of the motion as timely filed.
Reversed and remanded.
VILLANTI and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Thurston McCLAIN, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Westley v. State, 903 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)