JEFFERY MCDONALD, 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.
Jeffrey McDonald appeals the trial court's summary denial of his second addendum to a motion for postconviction relief under Rule 3.850, which the court found was never properly filed or served. The appellate court reverses, holding that when a prison mailbox stamp establishes timely delivery to prison officials for mailing, the burden shifts to the State to prove untimeliness, and such factual disputes cannot be resolved on summary denial.
The mailbox rule establishes a presumption that a document is timely filed when it bears a prison stamp indicating it was placed in a prison official's hands for mailing within the filing period. Once this presumption arises, the burden shifts to the State to prove the document was not timely placed in prison officials' hands for mailing. Factual disputes regarding timely filing under the mailbox rule cannot be resolved by summary denial and require an evidentiary hearing.
[1] Under the mailbox rule, a motion is deemed filed on the date it is handed over to prison officials for mailing.
[2] When a prison stamp indicates a motion was given to prison officials for mailing within the filing period, the burden shifts to the State to prove the motion was not time…
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“Under the mailbox rule, which establishes the date the motion was put into the hands of a prison official for mailing as the date of filing, the second addendum should have been presumed timely.”
Establishes the legal framework for determining when documents from incarcerated persons are deemed filed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcDonald filed a second addendum to his motion for postconviction relief that bore a prison stamp indicating it was handed over for mailing on Februar…
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
Jeffery McDonald appeals the trial court’s final order denying his motion to rule on his second addendum to motion for postconviction relief under Rule 3.850 (“second addendum”). In denying the motion, the trial court also summarily denied McDonald’s second addendum, finding that it was “never properly filed with the Clerk or served on the State.”
McDonald’s second addendum bears a prison stamp indicating that it was handed over for mailing on February 9, 2012, which was within two years of his judgment and sentence becoming final. Under the mailbox rule, which establishes the date the motion was put into the hands of a prison official for mailing as the date of filing, the second addendum should have been presumed timely. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b); see also Fla. R.App. P. 9.420(a)(2). Where such a presumption arises, the burden shifts “to the State to prove that the document was not timely placed in prison officials’ hands for mailing.” Thompson v. State, 761 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla.2000); see also Rosier v. State, 144 So.3d 604, 605-06 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
This type of factual dispute cannot be resolved without an evidentiary hearing. See Mathews v. State, 958 So.2d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (reversing summary denial of motion for leave to refile motion for postconviction relief and remanding ' for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on finding facially sufficient defendant’s allegation that he timely filed the original motion under the mailbox rule); see also Pagan v. State, 899 So.2d 1203, 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (reversing and remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant timely filed his motion by entrusting it to prison officials within filing period). *635Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the requisite evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
LAWSON, C.J., PALMER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tavoris Simmons v. State, 149 So. 3d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…resumption. Thompson, 761 So. 2d at 326. Ordinarily, an evidentiary hearing is needed to resolve factual disputes over the timeliness of an inmate’s filing under the mailbox rule. Bray v. State, 702 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); McDonald v. State, 192 So. 3d 633, 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). But, here, the State did not dispute the authenticity of the appellant’s evidence. Thompson, 761 So. 2d at 326. Because the postconviction court had unrebutted evidence that the appellant timely filed his motion for postcon…
-
Rondle L. Snodgrass III v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…his motion, and if the State challenges [his] assertion that the motion was timely filed, ‘there is a rebuttable presumption that the document was timely filed on the date reflected in the certificate of service.’” Id.; see also McDonald v. State, 192 So. 3d 633, 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (reversing and remanding for an evidentiary hearing where although the trial court found that the appellant’s rule 3.850 motion was never filed with the clerk or served on the state, the appellant’s second addendum “bears a…
Authorities Cited
- Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2000)
- Pagan v. State, 899 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Reashod Rosier v. State, 144 So. 3d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Mathews v. State, 958 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)