ANTHONY MILLER
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.
A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a Rule 3.850 motion as untimely without first addressing a defendant's pending motion for extension of time when the extension motion was filed within the two-year limitation period.
[1] A trial court should not deny an amended motion for postconviction relief as untimely when a motion for additional time to amend remains pending and unaddressed.
[2] A delay in filing an amended motion for postconviction relief may be deemed reasonable when the defendant has requested additional time and is awaiting a ruling on that r…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Based on the unique circumstances of this case, we find the delay in filing the amended motion was not unreasonable because Miller's request for more time remained pending.”
Court's holding on whether delay in amending motion was unreasonable
Anthony Miller filed a Rule 3.850 motion and was ordered to amend within 60 days with a proper oath and certificate of service. After allegedly not re…
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 Motion For Extension Of Time cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Anthony Miller timely appeals the summary denial of his amended motion seeking relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. After Miller filed his motion, the court gave him 60 days to amend his oath and certificate of service. Miller allegedly did not receive the court’s order in time but, once he did receive it, he moved to reinstate the 60 days to amend. Months later, while his motion for more time was pending and before the two-year time limit of rule 3.850(b) expired, Miller filed an amended motion. The court denied the amended motion as untimely but did not rule on the motion for more time. Miller argues the court erred when it denied his rule 3.850 motion as untimely without addressing his pending motion for more time. He argues that it was reasonable for him to delay filing the amended motion pending a ruling on his motion for more time.
In Ivory v. State, we affirmed a court’s denial of a rule 3.850 motion and noted that the defendant “did not seek an extension of the 60-day time limit [or] . . . argue[] any circumstances that prevented him from
2
timely complying with the trial court’s order.” 159 So. 3d 197, 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Here, Miller sought more time to amend his motion and waited to file the amended motion pending a ruling that never came. Based on the unique circumstances of this case, we find the delay in filing the amended motion was not unreasonable because Miller’s request for more time remained pending. We reverse the circuit court’s order and remand with instructions to consider the amended rule 3.850 motion on the merits. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. LEVINE, C.J., WARNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.