Tinsley v. State
This text of 41 So. 3d 334 (Tinsley 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
Raphael Marice Tinsley seeks a belated appeal although, in fact, his petition raises two different claims. In the first, he contends that he timely asked his trial counsel to appeal judgment and sentence. That claim is time-barred under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c)(4)(A) and we deny it as such.
Petitioner also contends that one or more attorneys agreed to file a motion for postconviction relief on his behalf and their failure to do so caused him to miss the time limitations set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b). Petitioner’s remedy regarding this claim is to file a motion for postconviction relief so stating in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)(3). The petition, to the extent it seeks such relief, is therefore dismissed without prejudice to Tinsley’s right to file a motion in circuit court.
PETITION DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
41 So. 3d 334, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10533, 2010 WL 2813776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tinsley-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.