Chestnut v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chestnut v. State

932 So. 2d 496, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 9424, 2006 WL 1627000

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Chestnut v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 900 So. 2d 624 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 14, 2006·No. No. 4D06-143·Published

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Samuel Chestnut challenges a trial court order denying his motion for extension of time to file a renewed motion for postcon-viction DNA testing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. By previous order, following this court’s remand, the trial court issued an order permitting Chestnut to file a renewed rule 3.853 motion within sixty days. Chestnut v. State, 900 So.2d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Chesnut moved for an extension of that deadline.

The trial court denied the extension request as moot, reasoning that it was untimely. We find that the motion for extension was timely, having been filed before the sixty-day deadline expired in accordance with Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614 (Fla.1992). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the merits of Chestnut’s extension request.

STEVENSON, C.J., WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Samuel Chestnut challenges a trial court order denying his motion for extension of time to file a renewed motion for postcon-viction DNA testing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. By previous order, following this court’s remand, the trial court issued an order permitting Chestnut to file a renewed rule 3.853 motion within sixty days. Chestnut v. State, 900 So.2d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Chesnut moved for an extension of that deadline.

The trial court denied the extension request as moot, reasoning that it was untimely. We find that the motion for extension was timely, having been filed before the sixty-day deadline expired in accordance with Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614 (Fla.1992). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the merits of Chestnut’s extension request.

STEVENSON, C.J., WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.

Chestnut v. State, 932 So. 2d 496, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 9424, 2006 WL 1627000 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

932 So. 2d 496 (Chestnut v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related