Nathaniel Carter, Jr. v. State of Florida

248 So. 3d 296
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 25, 2018
Docket17-3277
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 So. 3d 296 (Nathaniel Carter, Jr. v. State of Florida) 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
Nathaniel Carter, Jr. v. State of Florida, 248 So. 3d 296 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D17-3277 _____________________________

NATHANIEL CARTER, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County. Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

July 25, 2018

PER CURIAM.

The Appellant, Nathaniel Carter, Jr., appeals from an order summarily denying his June 12, 2017, amended postconviction motion brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial of that amended motion without comment. However, the record reflects that one of the Appellant’s motions for rehearing 1 requested a ruling on the claims in his original rule 3.850 motion. He attached to that motion for rehearing a rule 3.850 motion bearing an institutional mail

1 The Appellant filed two different motions for rehearing on the same date, which may have led the trial court to overlook one of the motions, believing it to be a duplicate. stamp dated September 29, 2015. Although this motion was not docketed with the trial court, it is considered filed on the date that it was conveyed to prison officials for mailing. See Padro- Guerrero v. State, 123 So. 3d 670, 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Lawson v. State, 107 So. 3d 1228, 1228-29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). This September 29, 2015, rule 3.850 motion was also referenced in the amended rule 3.850 motion, which expressed the intention to add claims to a pending motion and began numbering its claims at ground five. Under these circumstances, we reverse and remand to permit the trial court to rule on the original rule 3.850 motion. See Padro-Guerrero, 123 So. 3d at 671; Molfetto v. State, 955 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Sinclair v. State, 959 So. 2d 1277, 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

WETHERELL, ROWE, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Nathaniel Carter, Jr., pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

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

Related

Cody Shirah v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
248 So. 3d 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nathaniel-carter-jr-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2018.