JARVIS KING, 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.
Jarvis King appealed the denial of his postconviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied his motion after striking many claims without receiving his timely amended motion. The appellate court affirmed but allowed King to refile his amendment, applying the mailbox rule presumption of timely filing.
The appellate court affirmed the denial order but without prejudice to King. King may refile his amended motion with the postconviction court within sixty days, and the court must presume the motion was filed on the date of the certificate of service unless the State proves otherwise.
[1] A postconviction court should presume a pro se inmate's motion was filed on the date listed on the certificate of service, absent proof otherwise.
[2] The burden shifts to the State to prove that a pro se inmate's document was not timely placed in prison officials' hands for mailing when the presumption of filing on the…
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“Absent proof otherwise, 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.”
Establishes the mailbox rule presumption that governs King's filing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKing filed a postconviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The postconviction court struck many of his claims with leav…
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
Jarvis King appeals the order denying his motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. King’s motion was denied after many of his claims were stricken with leave to amend. When the postconviction court did not receive a timely amendment, the court entered a final order denying relief. On appeal, King filed a notice to *967this court accompanied by an amended motion with certificate of service reflecting that the motion was indeed timely filed under the mailbox rule, see Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614, 617 (Fla.1992), although it apparently did not reach the court. Because the postconviction court was not presented with this amended motion, we affirm the order on appeal without prejudice to King to refile his amended motion with the postconviction court within sixty days of the date of the issuance of the mandate in this case. Should King elect to refile his motion, the postconviction court should presume his motion was filed on the date listed on the certificate of service. See Fla. R. App. 9.420(a)(2); Rosier v. State, 144 So.3d 604, 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“Absent proof otherwise, 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.” (citations omitted)). The State, however, may litigate the timeliness of the motion. See id. (noting that when the presumption of filing on the date listed on an inmate’s certificate of service arises, “the burden shifts ‘to the State to prove that the document was not timely placed in prison officials’ hands for mailing’ ” (quoting Thompson v. State, 761 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla. 2000))).
Affirmed.
SILBERMAN, WALLACE, and SLEET, 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)
- Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2000)
- Reashod Rosier v. State, 144 So. 3d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)