Brower v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brower v. State

701 So. 2d 433, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12774, 1997 WL 705655

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 14, 1997

DocketNo. 97-63

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 701 So. 2d 433 (Brower 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

Brower v. State, 701 So. 2d 433, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12774, 1997 WL 705655 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Donald Brower, Sr. (Brower) challenges an order denying as untimely his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse.

Brower’s rule 3.850 motion was denied because it was filed more than two years after our decision in Brower’s direct appeal. We affirmed per curiam Brower’s direct appeal on May 10, 1994, and denied motion for rehearing on September 2, 1994. Brower v. State, 641 So.2d 1348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (table). The mandate however issued on September 20, 1994. It is the date of the mandate, and not the date of our decision, that opens the two-year window for filing a rule 3.850 motion. Ward v. Dugger, 508 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Brower’s rule 3.850 motion, filed on August 26, 1996, was within the two-year window, and thus was timely. We accordingly reverse the order below and remand this ease to the trial court to address Brower’s motion on the merits.

WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Donald Brower, Sr. (Brower) challenges an order denying as untimely his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse.

Brower’s rule 3.850 motion was denied because it was filed more than two years after our decision in Brower’s direct appeal. We affirmed per curiam Brower’s direct appeal on May 10, 1994, and denied motion for rehearing on September 2, 1994. Brower v. State, 641 So.2d 1348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (table). The mandate however issued on September 20, 1994. It is the date of the mandate, and not the date of our decision, that opens the two-year window for filing a rule 3.850 motion. Ward v. Dugger, 508 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Brower’s rule 3.850 motion, filed on August 26, 1996, was within the two-year window, and thus was timely. We accordingly reverse the order below and remand this ease to the trial court to address Brower’s motion on the merits.

WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

701 So. 2d 433, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12774, 1997 WL 705655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brower-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack