Pearson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pearson v. State

141 So. 3d 722, 2014 WL 2965904, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10182

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 2, 2014

Docket14-0955

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 141 So. 3d 722 (Pearson 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

Pearson v. State, 141 So. 3d 722, 2014 WL 2965904, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10182 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s petition filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The defendant was sentenced pursuant to a plea on August 9, 2011. On August 8, 2013, he placed his Rule 3.850 petition into hands of the prison mailroom official. The petition was clearly date stamped: “Provided to Martin Correctional Institution on 8/8/13 for mailing” and initialed by the mailroom official. The prison mailroom log shows the petition was placed in outgoing mail to the Clerk of Court on August 9, 2013, exactly two years from the date of conviction and sentence.

As stated by this Court in Saavedra v. State, 59 So.3d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), “[t]he two-year time limitation for filing motions for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 does not begin to run until *723 appellate proceedings have concluded and the court issues a mandate or thirty days after the judgment and sentence become final if no direct appeal is filed.” In addition, in Ramos v. State, 658 So.2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), this Court stated: “where the motion for post-conviction relief is essentially a motion to set aside the plea and no previous appeal has been taken, the judgment and sentence do not become “final” for purposes of the rule until the thirty-day period for filing an appeal expires.” Applying those cases here, defendant’s sentence was not final until September 8, 2013 and his motion was timely filed.

We reverse and remand for consideration of the defendant’s Rule 3.850 petition on the merits.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s petition filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The defendant was sentenced pursuant to a plea on August 9, 2011. On August 8, 2013, he placed his Rule 3.850 petition into hands of the prison mailroom official. The petition was clearly date stamped: “Provided to Martin Correctional Institution on 8/8/13 for mailing” and initialed by the mailroom official. The prison mailroom log shows the petition was placed in outgoing mail to the Clerk of Court on August 9, 2013, exactly two years from the date of conviction and sentence.

As stated by this Court in Saavedra v. State, 59 So.3d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), “[t]he two-year time limitation for filing motions for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 does not begin to run until *723 appellate proceedings have concluded and the court issues a mandate or thirty days after the judgment and sentence become final if no direct appeal is filed.” In addition, in Ramos v. State, 658 So.2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), this Court stated: “where the motion for post-conviction relief is essentially a motion to set aside the plea and no previous appeal has been taken, the judgment and sentence do not become “final” for purposes of the rule until the thirty-day period for filing an appeal expires.” Applying those cases here, defendant’s sentence was not final until September 8, 2013 and his motion was timely filed.

We reverse and remand for consideration of the defendant’s Rule 3.850 petition on the merits.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 So. 3d 722, 2014 WL 2965904, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearson-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack