DANIEL J. MATOS, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of Matos's Rule 3.850 motion to withdraw his plea, but remanded for the trial court to address whether an exception to the two-year filing deadline applied based on counsel's alleged neglect in failing to timely file a supplemental motion for post-conviction relief.
The court affirmed the denial of the original 3.850 motion but remanded because the trial court failed to address whether an exception to the time limitation applied based on counsel's alleged neglect, which stated a sufficient claim for an exception under Rule 3.850(b)(3).
[1] A supplemental motion for post-conviction relief filed after the expiration of the time limit under rule 3.850(b) may be struck as a nullity if it is not timely filed.
[2] A supplemental motion for post-conviction relief may state a sufficient claim of an exception to the time limitation if it alleges that counsel was retained to file the m…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“If the Supplemental Motion had been filed within the two-year time limit, then the trial court would have been required to address the motion and could not dismiss it as successive.”
Establishes that timely filing triggers a mandatory duty to address the motion, distinguishing between dismissal as successive versus time-barred.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMatos entered a guilty plea in June 2003. On November 14, 2004, he filed a Rule 3.850 motion to withdraw the plea. On January 9, 2006—more than two ye…
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 Relinquishment Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
[*573] PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s November 14, 2004, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion to withdraw plea. On January 9, 2006, appellant, through counsel, filed a Supplemental Motion for Post Conviction Relief attacking his June 2003 plea on several, new grounds. The trial court struck the Supplemental Motion as a nullity for the reasons stated in the State’s response, which referenced the limited nature of the relinquishment of jurisdiction.
The Supplemental Motion was filed before the trial court had entered a ruling on the 2004 motion but after the two-year time limit under the rule had expired. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). If the Supplemental Motion had been filed within the two-year time limit, then the trial court would have been required to address the motion and could not dismiss it as successive. See Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509, 517-18 (Fla.1999), receded from on other grounds, Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla.2004).
The Supplemental Motion was under oath and in it counsel alleged that he was retained to file the Supplemental Motion and failed to timely file the motion because of neglect. The motion stated a sufficient claim of an exception to the time limitation. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b)(3).
The trial court did not address counsel’s allegation of an exception to the time limitation. Accordingly, we remand this case with instructions for the trial court to address the claim that counsel was retained to file the Supplemental Motion but failed to timely do so because of neglect. Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So. 2d 931 (Fla.1999). The trial court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue if necessary. If the trial court determines that the exception to the time limitation has been established, then it must address the Supplemental Motion on its merits.
KLEIN, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2004)
- Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1999)
- Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1999)