Ben Lamont Denson v. State of Florida

260 So. 3d 1194
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 10, 2019
Docket17-4071
StatusPublished

This text of 260 So. 3d 1194 (Ben Lamont Denson v. State of Florida) 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
Ben Lamont Denson v. State of Florida, 260 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D17-4071 _____________________________

BEN LAMONT DENSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County. Andrew J. Decker, III, Judge.

January 10, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Ben Lamont Denson’s motion for postconviction relief was denied as untimely. Denson then sought relief under rule 3.850(b)(3), which excuses late filings if “the defendant retained counsel to timely file a 3.850 motion and counsel, through neglect, failed to file the motion.” The trial court rejected Denson’s claim, concluding the rule’s exception was inapplicable. Denson now appeals.

The issue below was whether Denson had, in fact, “retained counsel to timely file a 3.850 motion.” He had retained Luke Newman as counsel, but there was a factual dispute about the scope of the representation. Denson testified that his counsel agreed to file a 3.850 motion. His counsel testified that he agreed to explore potential 3.850 claims but never agreed to—and was never paid to—actually file the motion. Instead, counsel testified, he notified Denson that he was closing the file with no further action.

Faced with competing versions of events, the trial court found counsel’s testimony credible and concluded that counsel was not retained to file a motion. We review that finding only to determine if it was supported by competent, substantial evidence, see Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917, 923 (Fla. 2001), and it was. Accordingly, rule 3.850(b)(3) does not apply, and Denson’s motion was properly denied.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and RAY and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Ben Lamont Denson, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, and Steven Edward Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

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

Related

Porter v. State
788 So. 2d 917 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
260 So. 3d 1194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ben-lamont-denson-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2019.