Janson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Janson v. State

775 So. 2d 434, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 355, 2001 WL 43068

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 19, 2001·No. No. 5D00-2766·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

HARRIS, J.

The issue here is whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant an extension of time to file a motion for rehearing after the ruling on Janson’s Rule 3.850 motion because “motions for rehearing are not permitted” on motions for postconviction relief. We reverse. See Rule 3.850(g), Fla. R.Crim. P. (granting a fifteen-day period for the filing of a motion for rehearing “of any order denying a motion under this rule”); See also Sanders v. State, 611 So.2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

THOMPSON, C.J., and SAWAYA, J., concur.

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

HARRIS, J.

The issue here is whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant an extension of time to file a motion for rehearing after the ruling on Janson’s Rule 3.850 motion because “motions for rehearing are not permitted” on motions for postconviction relief. We reverse. See Rule 3.850(g), Fla. R.Crim. P. (granting a fifteen-day period for the filing of a motion for rehearing “of any order denying a motion under this rule”); See also Sanders v. State, 611 So.2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

THOMPSON, C.J., and SAWAYA, J., concur.

Janson v. State, 775 So. 2d 434, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 355, 2001 WL 43068 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

775 So. 2d 434 (Janson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related