Booth v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Booth v. State

14 So. 3d 291, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10963, 2009 WL 2392989

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 6, 2009

Docket1D09-0015

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 14 So. 3d 291 (Booth 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

Booth v. State, 14 So. 3d 291, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10963, 2009 WL 2392989 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed a rule 3.850 motion, which the trial court denied as untimely, advising, “No motion for rehearing, reconsideration or clarification will be entertained.” Appellant filed a motion for rehearing, alerting the trial court to controlling authority that it had apparently overlooked, but the trial court stamped the motion with “NO ACTION REQUIRED.” On appeal, Appellant raises two issues (1) the trial court erred in summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion because it was timely filed, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to entertain the motion for rehearing.

We only need to address the issue of timeliness. Appellant did not appeal his judgment and sentence. Thus, his judgment and sentence became final 30 days later when the time for filing an appeal passed. See Gust v. State, 535 So.2d 642, 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Appellant timely filed his rule 3.850 motion because he filed it within two years of that date. See id. We therefore reverse the order denying the motion as untimely.

REVERSED.

HAWKES, C.J., ALLEN and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed a rule 3.850 motion, which the trial court denied as untimely, advising, “No motion for rehearing, reconsideration or clarification will be entertained.” Appellant filed a motion for rehearing, alerting the trial court to controlling authority that it had apparently overlooked, but the trial court stamped the motion with “NO ACTION REQUIRED.” On appeal, Appellant raises two issues (1) the trial court erred in summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion because it was timely filed, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to entertain the motion for rehearing.

We only need to address the issue of timeliness. Appellant did not appeal his judgment and sentence. Thus, his judgment and sentence became final 30 days later when the time for filing an appeal passed. See Gust v. State, 535 So.2d 642, 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Appellant timely filed his rule 3.850 motion because he filed it within two years of that date. See id. We therefore reverse the order denying the motion as untimely.

REVERSED.

HAWKES, C.J., ALLEN and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 So. 3d 291, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10963, 2009 WL 2392989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/booth-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack