Walker v. State

871 So. 2d 1034, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6245

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Duane Isaac Walker contends that the trial court erred by denying him a “Steele ”¹ hearing.² However a Steele hearing is not required as the trial court considered Walker’s belated motion for post-conviction relief and denied it on the merits³ as well as on procedural grounds.

Affirmed.

1 . Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So.2d 931 (Fla.1999)(holding that a prisoner is entitled to a hearing on a claim that he or she missed the deadline to file a Rule 3.850 motion because his or her attorney had agreed to file the motion but failed to do so in a timely manner; if the prisoner prevails at the hearing he or she is authorized to file belatedly a Rule 3.850 motion).

2 . In Steele, at 934-35, the court directly amended Rule 3.850(b) to provide for a belated appeal in situations such as Steele’s. See Rule 3.850(b)(3)[2004],

3 . Holding that Walker's claim was refuted by the plea colloquy.