Haag v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Haag v. State

570 So. 2d 1145, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9283, 1990 WL 198472

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 12, 1990·No. No. 90-1961·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary denial of appellant’s 3.850 motion on the basis of untimeliness. However, we certify to the Supreme Court of Florida, as one of great public importance, the following question:

Does the rule 3.850 provision which states that with certain exceptions “no other motion shall be filed or considered pursuant to this rule if filed more than two years after the judgment and sentence become final” prevent consideration of such a motion which was turned over to prison authorities for mailing within the prescribed time limit but was stamped in by the court clerk after that time period had run?

HERSEY, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur. LETTS, J., dissents in part with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary denial of appellant’s 3.850 motion on the basis of untimeliness. However, we certify to the Supreme Court of Florida, as one of great public importance, the following question:

Does the rule 3.850 provision which states that with certain exceptions “no other motion shall be filed or considered pursuant to this rule if filed more than two years after the judgment and sentence become final” prevent consideration of such a motion which was turned over to prison authorities for mailing within the prescribed time limit but was stamped in by the court clerk after that time period had run?

HERSEY, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur. LETTS, J., dissents in part with opinion.

Haag v. State, 570 So. 2d 1145, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9283, 1990 WL 198472 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

570 So. 2d 1145 (Haag v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related