Millette v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Millette v. State

176 So. 3d 1287, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16150, 2015 WL 6620177

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 30, 2015

Docket2D14-5678

StatusPublished

This text of 176 So. 3d 1287 (Millette 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

Millette v. State, 176 So. 3d 1287, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16150, 2015 WL 6620177 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Reynaldo Millette appeals the postcon-viction court’s order dismissing as untimely his motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because the court improperly dismissed Millette’s second amended motion filed on May 23, 2013, we reverse and remand for the court to reconsider Millette’s claims-none of which were determined on the merits or refuted by the record. See Millette v. State, 148 So.3d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); see also Rosier v. State, 144 So.3d 604, 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (explaining that a timely filed rule 3.850 motion may be amended prior to the postconviction court’s disposition even after the two-year time period for filing a timely motion under the rule has expired).

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Reynaldo Millette appeals the postcon-viction court’s order dismissing as untimely his motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because the court improperly dismissed Millette’s second amended motion filed on May 23, 2013, we reverse and remand for the court to reconsider Millette’s claims-none of which were determined on the merits or refuted by the record. See Millette v. State, 148 So.3d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); see also Rosier v. State, 144 So.3d 604, 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (explaining that a timely filed rule 3.850 motion may be amended prior to the postconviction court’s disposition even after the two-year time period for filing a timely motion under the rule has expired).

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 So. 3d 1287, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16150, 2015 WL 6620177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/millette-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack