Kleckley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kleckley v. State

857 So. 2d 1009, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 16769, 2003 WL 22494165

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 5, 2003

DocketNo. 4D03-2759

StatusPublished

This text of 857 So. 2d 1009 (Kleckley 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

Kleckley v. State, 857 So. 2d 1009, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 16769, 2003 WL 22494165 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert Kleekley seeks review of an order denying his motion for postconviction relief as untimely. We reverse and remand for further review.

By opinion dated May 1, 2002, this court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Kleck-ley’s motion for postconviction relief due to his failure to comply with the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987 when filing the motion. See Kleekley v. State, 815 So.2d 737 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The affirmance was without prejudice to him re-filing with the trial court, within thirty days after the date of the opinion, his motion for postconviction relief in compliance with the rule. See id. at 737 (citing Lawson v. State, 754 So.2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)).

Kleekley claims to have timely filed the motion that was not received by the lower court. As there exists a good faith factual dispute regarding the date Kleekley filed the renewed motion, we remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue of timeliness. See Jones v. State, 854 So.2d 773, 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Jones v. State, 785 So.2d 561, 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Should the state opt to withdraw its objection on timeliness, the trial court should consider the motion on the merits. See Thompson v. State, 761 So.2d 324, 325 (Fla.2000).

FARMER, C.J., GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Robert Kleekley seeks review of an order denying his motion for postconviction relief as untimely. We reverse and remand for further review.

By opinion dated May 1, 2002, this court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Kleck-ley’s motion for postconviction relief due to his failure to comply with the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987 when filing the motion. See Kleekley v. State, 815 So.2d 737 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The affirmance was without prejudice to him re-filing with the trial court, within thirty days after the date of the opinion, his motion for postconviction relief in compliance with the rule. See id. at 737 (citing Lawson v. State, 754 So.2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)).

Kleekley claims to have timely filed the motion that was not received by the lower court. As there exists a good faith factual dispute regarding the date Kleekley filed the renewed motion, we remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue of timeliness. See Jones v. State, 854 So.2d 773, 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Jones v. State, 785 So.2d 561, 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Should the state opt to withdraw its objection on timeliness, the trial court should consider the motion on the merits. See Thompson v. State, 761 So.2d 324, 325 (Fla.2000).

FARMER, C.J., GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

857 So. 2d 1009, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 16769, 2003 WL 22494165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleckley-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack