MARK JACK MAXWELL, 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.
Maxwell appeals the dismissal of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion on timeliness grounds. The court reversed, holding that the two-year filing deadline does not begin until the Florida Supreme Court's review process is completed, not when the district court of appeal issues its decision.
The court held that Maxwell's 3.850 motion was timely. When a district court of appeal issues a written opinion in a case, the two-year filing period under Rule 3.850 does not begin to run until the Florida Supreme Court's review proceedings are concluded, not from the date of the district court's decision or mandate.
[1] A judgment and sentence do not become final until proceedings in the supreme court are concluded, when the supreme court has jurisdiction to review a district court decis…
[2] The two-year period for filing a post-conviction relief motion under Rule 3.850 does not begin to run until the conclusion of supreme court proceedings if the supreme cou…
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“As the district court of appeal issued a written opinion in the defendant's case, his judgment and sentence did not become final until the proceedings in the supreme court were concluded.”
Establishes the key principle that finality for Rule 3.850 purposes depends on whether a written opinion was issued
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaxwell was convicted of a felony driving offense and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. His judgment and sentence were affirmed by written opinion …
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 Rule 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
The defendant appeals the dismissal of his 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. The trial court found it to be untimely. The defendant was convicted of a felony driving offense and was sentenced to ten years. The defendant’s judgment and sentence were affirmed by written opinion on August 17, 2001. See Maxwell v. State, 791 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The mandate issued on September 6, 2001. The defendant then sought review in the Florida Supreme Court. The supreme court denied review on March 22, 2002. Maxwell v. State, 817 So. 2d 848 (Fla.2002). The defendant served his post-conviction motion on March 9, 2004.
As the district court of appeal issued a written opinion in the defendant’s case, his judgment and sentence did not become final until the proceedings in the supreme court were concluded. In Witt v. State, 861 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), we held that if the supreme court has jurisdiction to review a district court decision, the two-year period under Rule 3.850 does not begin to run until the proceedings in the supreme court have concluded. See also Perkins v. State, 845 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Cf. Beaty v. State, 701 So. 2d 856 (Fla.1997), for the proposition that when a per curiam affirmance is issued, the two-year limitation period begins to run from the date the district court of appeal issues its mandate. As the defendant’s 3.850 motion was timely filed within two years of the final order issued by the supreme court, the trial court improperly dismissed the 3.850 motion as untimely. The order is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court to consider the 3.850 motion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Beaty v. State, 701 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1997)
- Perkins v. State, 845 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Smith v. State, 861 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Witt v. State, 861 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Maxwell v. State, 791 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)