JESUS R. HERNANDEZ
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.
Jesus Hernandez appealed the denial of his pro se motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The lower court erroneously denied the motion as untimely, failing to properly apply the mailbox rule for pro se inmates. The appellate court reversed and remanded for consideration of the motion's merits.
The court held that Hernandez's motion was timely filed because, under the mailbox rule, it was deemed filed when he entrusted it to prison officials on October 1, 2021, which was within two years of when his judgment and sentence became final on November 6, 2019. The lower court erred in calculating the deadline from the date of sentencing rather than from when the judgment became final after the appeal period expired.
[1] Under the mailbox rule, a pro se inmate's Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion is deemed filed at the moment the inmate places it in the hands of prison officials, no…
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 intelligenceHernandez pleaded guilty on October 7, 2019 to twenty-five counts of sexual offenses involving children and received his sentence that same day. He di…
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 Finality Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County.
John D.W. Beamer, Judge.
March 21, 2025 MIZE, J.
Appellant, Jesus R. Hernandez (“Hernandez”), appeals the denial of his pro se motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. Crim P. 3.850(k); Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). Because the lower court erroneously found that Hernandez’s motion was not timely filed, we reverse and remand for the lower court to consider the claims in Hernandez’s motion on the merits as required by Florida Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.850.
On October 7, 2019, Hernandez entered a guilty plea to twenty-five counts of sexual offenses that involved children. The lower court rendered the judgment and sentence the same day. Hernandez did not appeal, and the judgment and sentence became final when the thirty-day time period for filing an appeal expired on November 6, 2019. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(3); Gust v. State, 535 So. 2d 642, 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). On October 1, 2021, Hernandez gave his motion for post-conviction relief to prison officials for mailing as indicated by the date stamp on the motion. The Osceola County Clerk of Court received the motion on October 8, 2021, and stamped the motion accordingly. The lower court considered Hernandez’s motion and denied it as untimely. Specifically, the lower court found: (1) when Hernandez did not file an appeal, his sentence became final on October 7, 2019; and (2) his motion was filed on October 8, 2021, and was therefore untimely.
The lower court relied upon Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b) which provides: “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 . . . .” Under the mailbox rule, a pro se inmate’s motion “is deemed filed at the moment in time when the inmate loses control over the document by entrusting its further delivery or processing to agents of the state. Usually, this point occurs when the inmate places the document in the hands of prison officials.” Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla. 1992) (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275 (1988)). As noted above, Hernandez’s judgment and sentence became final when the thirty-day time period for filing an appeal expired on November 6, 2019. He placed his motion into the hands of the prison officials on October 1, 2021, which was within the two-year period after his judgment and sentence became final. Under Haag and Rule 3.850(b), his motion was timely filed, and the lower court erred in finding that it was untimely.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the lower court to consider Hernandez’s post-conviction motion on the merits in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(f).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
NARDELLA and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur. Jesus R. Hernandez, Chipley, pro se. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marissa V. Giles, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1988)
- State v. Thurston McCLAIN, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Gust v. State, 535 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)