Cardenas v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cardenas v. State

826 So. 2d 1007, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 226, 2001 WL 37727

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 17, 2001

DocketNo. 3D00-2616

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 826 So. 2d 1007 (Cardenas 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

Cardenas v. State, 826 So. 2d 1007, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 226, 2001 WL 37727 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant below seeks a writ of habeas .corpus permitting belated appeals of two separate denials of post conviction relief. We grant the petition and adopt the candid and very helpful “argument” in the state’s response:

[1008]*1008Petitioner contends that the court/ clerk of court failed to inform him, on two separate occasions, of his right to appeal following the denial of his Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence and his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Ex. Q: 2-3). A review of the orders denying the post-conviction motion and the petition for habeas corpus indicate an absence of any language informing the defendant that he had thirty (30) days to appeal the decisions. (Ex. N, P). Because the court failed to inform the defendant of his right to appeal following the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief and his petition for habeas corpus, the defendant is entitled to a belated appeal of these denials. Williams v. Singletary, 723 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Tate v. Singletary, 716 So.2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); State v. District Court of Appeals, Third District, 316 So.2d 50 (Fla.1975).

Habeas Corpus granted.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant below seeks a writ of habeas .corpus permitting belated appeals of two separate denials of post conviction relief. We grant the petition and adopt the candid and very helpful “argument” in the state’s response:

[1008]*1008Petitioner contends that the court/ clerk of court failed to inform him, on two separate occasions, of his right to appeal following the denial of his Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence and his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Ex. Q: 2-3). A review of the orders denying the post-conviction motion and the petition for habeas corpus indicate an absence of any language informing the defendant that he had thirty (30) days to appeal the decisions. (Ex. N, P). Because the court failed to inform the defendant of his right to appeal following the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief and his petition for habeas corpus, the defendant is entitled to a belated appeal of these denials. Williams v. Singletary, 723 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Tate v. Singletary, 716 So.2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); State v. District Court of Appeals, Third District, 316 So.2d 50 (Fla.1975).

Habeas Corpus granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

826 So. 2d 1007, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 226, 2001 WL 37727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cardenas-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack