ISAAC SUTTON, JR., 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 affirmed dismissal of a postconviction relief motion as untimely, clarifying that the two-year filing deadline ran from the February 2004 mandate in the direct appeal, not from dates in a separate postconviction appeal.
A Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion is untimely when filed more than two years after the mandate issued in the direct appeal, and no exceptions to the time limit apply.
[1] A Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion must be filed within two years after the mandate issues in the direct appeal, and the deadline is not extended by subsequent pos…
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 intelligenceSutton was convicted in case 01-CF-1334 in 2001. His direct appeal was affirmed in 2003 with a mandate issued February 2, 2004. He filed a Rule 3.850 …
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 Habitual Offender Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
Isaac Sutton, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In May 2016, Sutton filed his rule 3.850 motion in circuit court case number 01-CF-1334, challenging a conviction that was later used to habitualize him when he was convicted of new offenses in 2009. The postconviction court dismissed Sutton’s rule 3.850 motion as untimely, finding that his conviction in 01-CF-1334 became final in 2008 when a mandate was issued in his direct appeal and that he had until April 24, 2010, to file a timely rule 3.850 motion.
We affirm the postconviction court’s dismissal; however, we clarify the dates that render his motion untimely. The dates relied on by the postconviction court relate to one of Sutton’s other postconviction appeals (2D07-5888), rather than the direct appeal from his judgment and sentence in 01-CF-1334. Sutton’s judgment and sentence in 01-CF-1334 was affirmed in 2003 in 2D03-160, and the mandate issued on February 2, 2004. Therefore, he had until February 2006 to file a timely rule 3.850 motion relating to his conviction in that case. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b). Based on the allegations in his rule 3.850 motion, none of the exceptions to the two-year time limit apply.
Affirmed.
MORRIS, BLACK, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.