Bunger v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bunger v. State

687 So. 2d 868, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 190, 1997 WL 20418

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 22, 1997

DocketNo. 96-05050

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 687 So. 2d 868 (Bunger 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

Bunger v. State, 687 So. 2d 868, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 190, 1997 WL 20418 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.

Roger Bunger appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconvietion relief. We reverse the trial court’s order which stated that the motion was untimely.

Bunger was sentenced for multiple counts in Circuit Case No. 91-11882 on October 27, 1992. Bunger correctly alleges in his motion that this court affirmed his appeal of those sentences on November 30, 1994. See Bun-ger v. State, 646 So.2d 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Our records confirm that the appeal involved the same circuit case number which is the subject of Bunger’s motion.¹ Bunger filed the motion for postconviction relief on October 15, 1994. In denying Bunger’s motion, the trial court stated that no appeal was taken in this case and that more than two years had elapsed since Bunger’s sentence was imposed. This court’s records confirm that the trial judge mistakenly concluded that Bunger did not appeal the sentences in that case. Accordingly, we conclude that Bunger timely filed his motion within the two-year time limit permitted by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b).²

We reverse the summary denial of Bun-ger’s motion and remand this matter to the trial court. If the trial court again summarily denies the motion, it shall attach such [869]*869portions of the record which conclusively refute Bunger’s allegations. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain appellate review.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

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

PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.

Roger Bunger appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconvietion relief. We reverse the trial court’s order which stated that the motion was untimely.

Bunger was sentenced for multiple counts in Circuit Case No. 91-11882 on October 27, 1992. Bunger correctly alleges in his motion that this court affirmed his appeal of those sentences on November 30, 1994. See Bun-ger v. State, 646 So.2d 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Our records confirm that the appeal involved the same circuit case number which is the subject of Bunger’s motion.¹ Bunger filed the motion for postconviction relief on October 15, 1994. In denying Bunger’s motion, the trial court stated that no appeal was taken in this case and that more than two years had elapsed since Bunger’s sentence was imposed. This court’s records confirm that the trial judge mistakenly concluded that Bunger did not appeal the sentences in that case. Accordingly, we conclude that Bunger timely filed his motion within the two-year time limit permitted by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b).²

We reverse the summary denial of Bun-ger’s motion and remand this matter to the trial court. If the trial court again summarily denies the motion, it shall attach such [869]*869portions of the record which conclusively refute Bunger’s allegations. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain appellate review.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 So. 2d 868, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 190, 1997 WL 20418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bunger-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack