Brazill v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brazill v. State

937 So. 2d 272, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 15188, 2006 WL 2612744

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 13, 2006

DocketNo. 4D06-2471

StatusPublished

This text of 937 So. 2d 272 (Brazill 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

Brazill v. State, 937 So. 2d 272, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 15188, 2006 WL 2612744 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Nathaniel Brazill (Defendant) appeals an order summarily denying, as untimely, his motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We reverse and remand.

This court affirmed Defendant’s direct appeal by written opinion. Brazill v. State, 845 So.2d 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), rev. denied, 876 So.2d 561 (Fla.2004). This court’s mandate issued on May 30, 2003, but on June 12, 2003, Defendant filed a timely notice of intent to invoke discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court to review this court’s decision, which the Florida Supreme Court denied by order dated May 21, 2004. Brazill v. State, 876 So.2d 561 (Fla.2004).

The trial court summarily denied as untimely Defendant’s rule 3.850 motion, filed on May 11, 2006, because it was filed more [273]*273than two years after May 30, 2003. However, Defendant had two years from May 21, 2004, in which to file a timely motion for post-conviction relief. Gaskin v. State, 737 So.2d 509 (Fla.1999) (holding that if a defendant petitions the supreme court for review of his direct appeal, the time for filing a motion for post-conviction relief begins to run when the petition has been determined), receded from on other grounds by Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579 (Fla.2004).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

KLEIN, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Nathaniel Brazill (Defendant) appeals an order summarily denying, as untimely, his motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We reverse and remand.

This court affirmed Defendant’s direct appeal by written opinion. Brazill v. State, 845 So.2d 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), rev. denied, 876 So.2d 561 (Fla.2004). This court’s mandate issued on May 30, 2003, but on June 12, 2003, Defendant filed a timely notice of intent to invoke discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court to review this court’s decision, which the Florida Supreme Court denied by order dated May 21, 2004. Brazill v. State, 876 So.2d 561 (Fla.2004).

The trial court summarily denied as untimely Defendant’s rule 3.850 motion, filed on May 11, 2006, because it was filed more [273]*273than two years after May 30, 2003. However, Defendant had two years from May 21, 2004, in which to file a timely motion for post-conviction relief. Gaskin v. State, 737 So.2d 509 (Fla.1999) (holding that if a defendant petitions the supreme court for review of his direct appeal, the time for filing a motion for post-conviction relief begins to run when the petition has been determined), receded from on other grounds by Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579 (Fla.2004).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

KLEIN, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

937 So. 2d 272, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 15188, 2006 WL 2612744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brazill-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack