Sanders v. State

611 So. 2d 561, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13750, 1992 WL 386574
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 29, 1992·No. No. 92-570·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

After denial of appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, appellant retained counsel. Within the rehearing time, counsel filed a timely motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing. Counsel explained that he had just been retained and requested an extension of time to study the record and prepare a motion for rehearing. The motion was denied and appellant has appealed.

We are unable to see a sound reason for denial of the motion for extension of time, and none has been suggested. The order under review is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant the motion for extension of time nunc pro tunc and for further proceedings on appellant’s motion for rehearing.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Sanders v. State, 611 So. 2d 561, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13750, 1992 WL 386574 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

611 So. 2d 561 (Sanders v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Janson v. State
775 So. 2d 434 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)