Primavera v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Primavera v. State

210 So. 3d 91, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12917

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 26, 2016

Docket2D14-4933

StatusPublished

This text of 210 So. 3d 91 (Primavera 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

Primavera v. State, 210 So. 3d 91, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12917 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Paul R. Primavera appeals the order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

In his motion, Primavera argued that his sentences for eight counts of promotion of a sexual performance by a child violated his double jeopardy rights. The postcon-viction court correctly found that Primav-eras claim was not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Coughlin v. State, 932 So.2d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (en banc) (holding that double jeopardy challenges to sentences necessarily involve challenges to the underlying convictions and that rule 3.800(a) is limited to claims that the sentence is illegal). But the court incorrectly found that it could not consider the motion as filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 because it was untimely and facially insufficient. ■ Rule 3.850(b) provides that motions under the rule must be filed within two years of the *92 judgment and sentence becoming final. This court issued the mandate on November 19, 2013, and Primavera filed his motion on September 11, 2015. Thus, the motion was timely filed. Under rule 3.850, a movant is entitled to amend his motion to state a facially sufficient claim if he can do so in good faith. See Patterson v. State, 141 So.3d 707, 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (holding that because the postconviction court should have treated Patterson’s motion as if it had been filed under rule 3.850, he had to be given an opportunity to amend the motion pursuant to rule 3.850(f)(2) if he could do so in good faith).

Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Primavera’s rule 3.800(a) motion and remand for the postconviction court to treat it as timely filed under rule 3.850.

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and SLEET, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Paul R. Primavera appeals the order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

In his motion, Primavera argued that his sentences for eight counts of promotion of a sexual performance by a child violated his double jeopardy rights. The postcon-viction court correctly found that Primav-eras claim was not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Coughlin v. State, 932 So.2d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (en banc) (holding that double jeopardy challenges to sentences necessarily involve challenges to the underlying convictions and that rule 3.800(a) is limited to claims that the sentence is illegal). But the court incorrectly found that it could not consider the motion as filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 because it was untimely and facially insufficient. ■ Rule 3.850(b) provides that motions under the rule must be filed within two years of the *92 judgment and sentence becoming final. This court issued the mandate on November 19, 2013, and Primavera filed his motion on September 11, 2015. Thus, the motion was timely filed. Under rule 3.850, a movant is entitled to amend his motion to state a facially sufficient claim if he can do so in good faith. See Patterson v. State, 141 So.3d 707, 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (holding that because the postconviction court should have treated Patterson’s motion as if it had been filed under rule 3.850, he had to be given an opportunity to amend the motion pursuant to rule 3.850(f)(2) if he could do so in good faith).

Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Primavera’s rule 3.800(a) motion and remand for the postconviction court to treat it as timely filed under rule 3.850.

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and SLEET, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 So. 3d 91, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/primavera-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack