Norvilus v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Norvilus v. State

23 So. 3d 1256, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 20050, 2009 WL 4928051

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 23, 2009

Docket3D08-2222

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 So. 3d 1256 (Norvilus 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

Norvilus v. State, 23 So. 3d 1256, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 20050, 2009 WL 4928051 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Jean Norvilus, appeals a trial court order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because it was untimely. Norvilus pled guilty to second-degree murder and the trial court sentenced him to a twenty-five-year minimum mandatory sentence on June 16, 2008. On July 15, 2008, Norvilus submitted his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the South Florida Reception Center for mailing. The clerk of the court filed the motion on July 25, 2008. In its order, the trial court stated the defendant’s motion was filed on July 25, 2008, and denied it as untimely.

When a pro se inmate files a motion, the mailbox rule applies, in which the motion is deemed to be filed at the moment the inmate loses control over the document by entrusting its further delivery or processing to agents of state. Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614, 617 (Fla.1992). Thus, Norvi-lus’s motion is deemed to be filed on the date he handed the motion to the South Florida Reception Center, which was July 15, 2008. Because Norvilus filed within thirty days of the date of sentencing, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i), we reverse for further proceedings on the merits.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Jean Norvilus, appeals a trial court order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because it was untimely. Norvilus pled guilty to second-degree murder and the trial court sentenced him to a twenty-five-year minimum mandatory sentence on June 16, 2008. On July 15, 2008, Norvilus submitted his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the South Florida Reception Center for mailing. The clerk of the court filed the motion on July 25, 2008. In its order, the trial court stated the defendant’s motion was filed on July 25, 2008, and denied it as untimely.

When a pro se inmate files a motion, the mailbox rule applies, in which the motion is deemed to be filed at the moment the inmate loses control over the document by entrusting its further delivery or processing to agents of state. Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614, 617 (Fla.1992). Thus, Norvi-lus’s motion is deemed to be filed on the date he handed the motion to the South Florida Reception Center, which was July 15, 2008. Because Norvilus filed within thirty days of the date of sentencing, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i), we reverse for further proceedings on the merits.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 So. 3d 1256, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 20050, 2009 WL 4928051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norvilus-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack