TONDA IHETU ROYAL
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.
The two-year period for filing a Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion begins when the appellate court issues its mandate, not when it files its decision.
[1] The two-year period for filing a motion for postconviction relief begins to run upon the issuance of the appellate court's mandate.
[2] A trial court errs by calculating the timeliness of a postconviction relief motion based on the date of an appellate decision rather than the date of the mandate.
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“[T]he two-year period for filing a motion for postconviction relief began to run upon the issuance of [the district court's] mandate.”
Beaty v. State, 701 So. 2d 856, 857 (Fla. 1997)
Appellant Royal was convicted and received a judgment and sentence in 2019. The Fifth District affirmed his conviction on April 20, 2021, but did not …
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 Timeliness Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
March 1, 2024 PER CURIAM.
Appellant moved for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He filed his motion on July 12, 2023. The trial court denied the motion as untimely because in the court’s view, Appellant filed it “more than two years after his judgment and sentence became final.” Appellant moved for rehearing, arguing that his motion was timely based on the date of the mandate in his direct appeal. The trial court denied rehearing, reasoning that the Fifth District’s decision “was finalized on April
20, 2021, which would be the starting point for Defendant’s 2-year time limitation pursuant to rule 3.850(b).”
This court affirmed Appellant’s judgment and sentence on April 20, 2021. Royal v. State, 320 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (Table). However, this court did not issue the mandate until July 13, 2021. The date of the mandate starts the two-year filing window under rule 3.850. See Beaty v. State, 701 So. 2d 856, 857 (Fla. 1997) (“[T]he two-year period for filing a motion for postconviction relief began to run upon the issuance of [the district court’s] mandate.”); Cave v. State, 289 So. 3d 980, 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (“For purposes of [rule 3.850], the two-year period begins to run when appellate proceedings have concluded and the court issues a mandate . . . .”). Thus, Appellant’s motion, filed on July 12, 2023, was timely.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the merits of Appellant’s motion.
REVERSED and REMANDED. WALLIS, JAY, and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tonda Ihetu Royal v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…fth District’s decision “was finalized on April 20, 2021, which would be the starting point for Defendant’s 2-year time limitation pursuant to rule 3.850(b).” This court affirmed Appellant’s judgment and sentence on April 20, 2021. Royal v. State, 320 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (Table). However, this court did not issue the mandate until July 13, 2021. The date of the mandate starts the two-year filing window under rule 3.850. See Beaty v. State, 701 So. 2d 856, 857 (Fla. 1997) (“[T]he two-year period f…1 / 2
-
Marcelyn Mathieu v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…vacate a sentence that exceeds the limits provided by law may be filed at any time. No other motion shall be filed or considered pursuant to this rule if filed more than 2 years after the judgment and sentence become final . . . .”); Cave v. State, 289 So. 3d 980, 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (“For purposes of [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850], the two-year period begins to run when appellate proceedings have concluded and the court issues a mandate . . . .”); Mathieu v. State, 258 So. 3d 528, 529 (Fla.…
-
Marcelyn Mathieu v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…vacate a sentence that exceeds the limits provided by law may be filed at any time. No other motion shall be filed or considered pursuant to this rule if filed more than 2 years after the judgment and sentence become final . . . .”); Cave v. State, 289 So. 3d 980, 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (“For purposes of [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850], the two-year period begins to run when appellate proceedings have concluded and the court issues a mandate . . . .”); Mathieu v. State, 258 So. 3d 528, 529 (Fla.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Beaty v. State, 701 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1997)
- Tonda Ihetu Royal v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)