CHANEL NOMNOMBRE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Untimely Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, J.
Chanel Nomnombre appeals from the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction DNA testing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. The trial court denied Nomnombre’s motion as untimely and as lacking a sufficient oath. The trial court did not address the merits or sufficiency of the claim. We find that Nomnombre’s motion was not untimely 1 and it included the sufficient alternative oath permitted by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987 associated with rule 3.850 motions. Accordingly, the case is reversed and remanded to the trial court for further review of the motion.
KLEIN and MAY, JJ., concur. . By the time the motion was filed, in December 2006, the time limit had been deleted from the rule. See In Re Amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853(d), 938 So. 2d 977 (Fla.2006).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knowles v. State, 976 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…entitled to prison credit for time served following a violation of probation. Scott v. State, 872 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The trial court failed to attach portions of the record which clearly refute Knowles’s allegations. Florence v. State, 963 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). We remand for the attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting appellant’s claims or for any other appropriate relief. SHAHOOD, C.J., WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- In re Amendments TO Fla. Rule OF Crim. Procedure 3.853(d), 938 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2006)