Thomas v. State
This text of Thomas v. State (Thomas 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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed March 27, 2019.
________________
No. 3D18-2487 Lower Tribunal No. 17-10511A ________________
Beanco Thomas, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton Hirsch, Judge.
Beanco Thomas, in proper person.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and G. Raemy Charest-Turken, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and HENDON, JJ.
EMAS, J. ON CONFESSION OF ERROR
Beanco Alexander Thomas appeals from the trial court’s order summarily
denying, with prejudice, his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Before the trial court rendered the order on appeal, however, Thomas filed a
motion to voluntarily dismiss his motion for postconviction relief, advising the trial
court that he was seeking voluntary dismissal of the motion for postconviction
relief because as pleaded it was “facially and legally insufficient.” Although the
trial court acknowledged Thomas’s motion for voluntary dismissal “was filed one
day prior to entry of the order on his motion for postconviction relief,” it
nevertheless entered the order denying with prejudice Thomas’ motion for
postconviction relief, and denied “as moot” Thomas’ motion for voluntary
dismissal.
The State properly and commendably confesses error, acknowledging that
Thomas was entitled to voluntarily dismiss his motion under the circumstances.
See Simon v. State, 768 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding defendant was
entitled to voluntarily dismiss his 3.850 motion, where the voluntary dismissal
motion was filed before the court rendered an order on the 3.850 motion, and there
would be no prejudice to the State) (citing Clark v. State, 491 So. 2d 545 (Fla.
1986)). See also Hampton v. State, 949 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
2 We therefore reverse the order on appeal, and remand with directions to
grant Thomas’ motion for voluntary dismissal of his September 11, 2018 motion
for postconviction relief, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Thomas v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-state-fladistctapp-2019.