Aquino v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Aquino v. State

958 So. 2d 1133, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 9975, 2007 WL 1827264

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 27, 2007

DocketNo. 1D06-5681

StatusPublished

This text of 958 So. 2d 1133 (Aquino v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aquino v. State, 958 So. 2d 1133, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 9975, 2007 WL 1827264 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Juan Aquino, appeals an order summarily denying his amended post-conviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Concluding that the trial court erred in ruling that the amended motion was untimely and successive, we reverse the order and remand. See Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614, 617 (Fla.1992) (adopting the mailbox rule, which provides that a motion is considered filed when a pro se inmate presents it to the correctional institution for mailing); Nunez-Medina v. State, 817 So.2d 937, 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“The restriction against successive motions on the same grounds is applied only when the grounds raised were previously adjudicated on their merits, and not where the previous motion was summarily denied or dismissed as legally insufficient.”). On remand, the trial court is instructed to determine whether Appellant’s amended motion is facially sufficient. If the court so determines, it must attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Appellant’s claims, hold an evidentiary hearing, or grant relief.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

DAVIS and POLSTON, JJ., and LAWRENCE, Jr., L. ARTHUR, Senior Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Juan Aquino, appeals an order summarily denying his amended post-conviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Concluding that the trial court erred in ruling that the amended motion was untimely and successive, we reverse the order and remand. See Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614, 617 (Fla.1992) (adopting the mailbox rule, which provides that a motion is considered filed when a pro se inmate presents it to the correctional institution for mailing); Nunez-Medina v. State, 817 So.2d 937, 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“The restriction against successive motions on the same grounds is applied only when the grounds raised were previously adjudicated on their merits, and not where the previous motion was summarily denied or dismissed as legally insufficient.”). On remand, the trial court is instructed to determine whether Appellant’s amended motion is facially sufficient. If the court so determines, it must attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Appellant’s claims, hold an evidentiary hearing, or grant relief.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

DAVIS and POLSTON, JJ., and LAWRENCE, Jr., L. ARTHUR, Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

958 So. 2d 1133, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 9975, 2007 WL 1827264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aquino-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack