SZEREMI v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

SZEREMI v. State

6 So. 3d 122, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3252, 2009 WL 1025878

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 17, 2009

Docket2D08-4332

StatusPublished

This text of 6 So. 3d 122 (SZEREMI 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

SZEREMI v. State, 6 So. 3d 122, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3252, 2009 WL 1025878 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

KHOUZAM, Judge.

We affirm, without comment, that portion of the postconviction court’s order denying Gene Szeremi’s motion for postcon-viction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and alternative petition for writ of habeas corpus.

In the same order, the postconviction court also denied as untimely Mr. Szere-mi’s motion for postconviction DNA test *123 ing filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. However, as a result of amendments to rule 3.853 and statutes governing DNA testing, a motion for post-conviction DNA testing may be filed at any time following the date that the judgment and sentence in the case become final. See In re Amendments to Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.170 & 3.172, 953 So.2d 513, 518 (Fla.2007); In re Amendments to Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(d), 938 So.2d 977, 978 (Fla.2006); Bain v. State, 963 So.2d 913, 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Accordingly, we reverse the denial of Mr. Szeremi’s motion for postcon-viction DNA testing and remand for further proceedings under rule 3.853(c). We express no opinion regarding the allegations of Mr. Szeremi’s motion.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.

DAVIS and KELLY, JJ., Concur.

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

KHOUZAM, Judge.

We affirm, without comment, that portion of the postconviction court’s order denying Gene Szeremi’s motion for postcon-viction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and alternative petition for writ of habeas corpus.

In the same order, the postconviction court also denied as untimely Mr. Szere-mi’s motion for postconviction DNA test *123 ing filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. However, as a result of amendments to rule 3.853 and statutes governing DNA testing, a motion for post-conviction DNA testing may be filed at any time following the date that the judgment and sentence in the case become final. See In re Amendments to Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.170 & 3.172, 953 So.2d 513, 518 (Fla.2007); In re Amendments to Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.853(d), 938 So.2d 977, 978 (Fla.2006); Bain v. State, 963 So.2d 913, 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Accordingly, we reverse the denial of Mr. Szeremi’s motion for postcon-viction DNA testing and remand for further proceedings under rule 3.853(c). We express no opinion regarding the allegations of Mr. Szeremi’s motion.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.

DAVIS and KELLY, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 So. 3d 122, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3252, 2009 WL 1025878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/szeremi-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack