MICHAEL BOYINGTON, 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.
Michael Boyington appealed the denial of his postconviction Rule 3.850 motions on timeliness grounds. The court held that the motions were timely filed and that amended motions enlarging previously raised claims may be considered even if filed outside the two-year window, reversing the lower court's order.
The October 2013 motions were timely, having been filed within two years of the judgment becoming final on October 17, 2011. The January 2014 amended motion, which enlarged claims from previously timely filed pleadings, may be considered despite being filed outside the two-year window.
[1] A judgment of conviction becomes final for the purpose of calculating the time to file a postconviction motion when the time for filing a motion for rehearing expires or…
[2] A postconviction motion filed within two years of the judgment of conviction becoming final is timely.
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“A trial court may properly deny an amended rule 3.850 motion as untimely when it raises new claims and is filed outside of the two-year time period. The two-year time period, however, does not preclude the enlargement of issues which were raised in a timely filed motion for postconvietion relief.”
Establishes the key principle that amended motions enlarging previously raised claims are not barred by the two-year deadline even if filed outside the period.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2008, Boyington was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault with a firearm following a jury trial. This Court affirmed t…
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
Michael Boyington appeals a final order denying his October 2013 and January 2014 postconviction motions, filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, on the ground that they are untimely. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude the motions were incorrectly denied.
In 2008, following a jury trial, Boyington was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault with a firearm. This Court affirmed the convictions and sentences in August 2011. Boyington v. State, 67 So.3d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (Table). Boyington asked for and was granted an extension of time to file a motion for rehearing. He did so, and we denied the motion on October 17, 2011, at which point the judgment of conviction became final.
Thereafter, Boyington filed in the circuit court several postconviction motions. Pertinent here are his pro se amended rule 3.850 motion filed on October 15, 2013, a pro se supplemental amended motion filed on October 16, 2013,1 and “Defendant’s *1024Verified Amended Motion for Post-Conviction Relief’ filed through counsel on January 20, 2014. Mistakenly determining that Boyington’s convictions became final on September 6, 2011, the court concluded the October 2013 motions were untimely, which rendered the January 2014 motion untimely, as well.
As the State concedes, Boyington’s October 2013 motions indeed were timely, having been filed within two years of his judgment of conviction becoming final. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b). In addition, the lower court observed that the January 2014 amended motion “enlarges some of the grounds for relief from the previously filed pleadings.” If that is so, the court may consider those claims even though the motion was filed beyond the two-year time limit for rule 3.850 motions. See Lanier v. State, 826 So.2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“A trial court may properly deny an amended rule 3.850 motion as untimely when it raises new claims and is filed outside of the two-year time period. The two-year time period, however, does not preclude the enlargement of issues which were raised in a timely filed motion for postconvietion relief.”). Accordingly, we REVERSE the order denying as untimely Boyington’s October 15 and 16, 2013, and January 20, 2014, motions for postconviction relief and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BENTON and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rondle L. Snodgrass III v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…ly recognized that if an amended rule 3.850 motion is filed outside of the pertinent two-year time period, a court may consider such a motion if it “‘enlarges some of the grounds for relief from the previously filed pleadings.’” Boyington v. State, 172 So. 3d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (citation omitted). While the trial court found what it considered to be two peculiarities in what Appellant claimed was his original rule 3.850 motion, Appellant correctly noted below that he provided to prison officials h…
Authorities Cited
- Lanier v. State, 826 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Bradd Dixon v. State, 826 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)