Hardy v. State

958 So. 2d 577, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 9539, 2007 WL 1758248
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hardy v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 901 So. 2d 985
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 20, 2007·No. No. 4D07-568·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Michael Hardy, appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Hardy claims the lower court erred by failing to rule on his “Motion to Dismiss or Withdraw 3.850” prior to ruling on the merits of the motion for postconviction relief. We agree, and the State has properly conceded error. Pursuant to Washington v. State, 937 So.2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), and Hampton v. State, 949 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), the lower court should have allowed Hardy to withdraw his rule 3.850 motion prior to a ruling on the merits, thus preserving his right to re-file the motion at a later date within the two-year period of limitations. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). Therefore, we reverse and remand so that the lower court can grant the motion to dismiss, without prejudice, thus allowing Hardy to re-file a rule 3.850 motion within the time remaining under rule 3.850(b).

Reversed and Remanded.

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

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

Hardy v. State, 958 So. 2d 577, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 9539, 2007 WL 1758248 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

958 So. 2d 577 (Hardy v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Washington v. State
937 So. 2d 271 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Hampton v. State
949 So. 2d 1197 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)