Cadet v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cadet v. State

947 So. 2d 691, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1400, 2007 WL 397245

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 7, 2007

DocketNo. 4D06-980

StatusPublished

This text of 947 So. 2d 691 (Cadet 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

Cadet v. State, 947 So. 2d 691, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1400, 2007 WL 397245 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Kerby Cadet, timely appeals a trial court order which summarily denied his amended motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Crim[692]*692inal Procedure 3.850. It appears that the trial court viewed the amendment as an independent motion and denied it as untimely and successive.

We reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider the timeliness of the amendment. Our review of the record reveals that the amendment may have been authorized by a previous trial court order. Also, the amendment was filed before the trial court disposed of the original pending motion, though we note it may not have been before the court at the time it disposed of that pending motion. See Thompson v. State, 761 So.2d 324 (Fla.2000); see also Bulley v. State, 857 So.2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA2003).

Accordingly, the case is remanded for further review of the timeliness of the May 30, 2005, amendment.

GUNTHER, WARNER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Kerby Cadet, timely appeals a trial court order which summarily denied his amended motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Crim[692]*692inal Procedure 3.850. It appears that the trial court viewed the amendment as an independent motion and denied it as untimely and successive.

We reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider the timeliness of the amendment. Our review of the record reveals that the amendment may have been authorized by a previous trial court order. Also, the amendment was filed before the trial court disposed of the original pending motion, though we note it may not have been before the court at the time it disposed of that pending motion. See Thompson v. State, 761 So.2d 324 (Fla.2000); see also Bulley v. State, 857 So.2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA2003).

Accordingly, the case is remanded for further review of the timeliness of the May 30, 2005, amendment.

GUNTHER, WARNER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

947 So. 2d 691, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1400, 2007 WL 397245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cadet-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack