TYRONE SIMS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
An amended 3.850 post-conviction motion raising a new, distinct claim for ineffective assistance of counsel that is not filed within the two-year statutory time frame must be denied.
[1] An amended 3.850 post-conviction motion that raises a new, distinct claim for ineffective assistance of counsel must be filed within the two-year statutory time frame or…
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“New claims for relief contained in an amendment need not be considered by the court unless the amendment is filed within the [two-year] time frame specified in subdivision (b).”
Court citing Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(e) to explain the basis for affirming the denial of the amended motion.
Tyrone Sims filed a motion for extension of time and second amended 3.850 post-conviction motion. The second amended motion raised a new, distinct bas…
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 Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
TYRONE SIMS,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-2919
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed December 20, 2019
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Tom Young, Judge.
Tyrone Sims, Punta Gorda, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
SASSO, J.
Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order summarily denying his “Motion for Extension of Time and Second Amended 3.850 Post conviction Motion.” We affirm the denial, but not for the reasons articulated by the trial court. Instead, we affirm because Appellant's second amended motion raises a new, distinct basis for ineffective assistance of counsel. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 247 So. 3d 698, 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (affirming denial of amended 3.850 motion where motion did not provide new information to support original claim that trial counsel was ineffective, but rather amended motion
2 attempted to raise a new claim). Consequently, the motion was appropriately denied. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(e) (“New claims for relief contained in an amendment need not be considered by the court unless the amendment is filed within the [two-year] time frame specified in subdivision (b).”).
AFFIRMED.
GROSSHANS and TRAVER, JJ., concur.