Peterson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Peterson v. State

88 So. 3d 1035, 2012 WL 1886012, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8441

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 25, 2012

DocketNo. 5D12-1483

StatusPublished

This text of 88 So. 3d 1035 (Peterson 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

Peterson v. State, 88 So. 3d 1035, 2012 WL 1886012, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8441 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

James Peterson appeals the lower court’s order dismissing his rule 3.850 motion as untimely. We reverse because Peterson’s motion was directed to his resen-tencing and was filed within two years of his sentence becoming final.¹ Thus, it was timely. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). On remand, the lower court is instructed to consider Peterson’s motion on the merits.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GRIFFIN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur. COHEN, J., concurs specially, with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

James Peterson appeals the lower court’s order dismissing his rule 3.850 motion as untimely. We reverse because Peterson’s motion was directed to his resen-tencing and was filed within two years of his sentence becoming final.¹ Thus, it was timely. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). On remand, the lower court is instructed to consider Peterson’s motion on the merits.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GRIFFIN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur. COHEN, J., concurs specially, with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 So. 3d 1035, 2012 WL 1886012, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack