5D2023-2819
The trial court denied a rule 3.850 motion as untimely, calculating the two-year period from the date of the Fifth DCA's affirmance rather than the mandate. The Fifth DCA reversed, reaffirming that the two-year filing window under rule 3.850(b) begins upon issuance of the appellate mandate, not the date of the decision itself, making the motion timely.
Key facts
- Appellant sought post-conviction relief under rule 3.850 after the Fifth DCA affirmed a conviction on April 20, 2021, with the appellate mandate issuing on July 13, 2021.
- The trial court denied the rule 3.850 motion as untimely, calculating the two-year filing deadline from the April 20, 2021 decision date rather than the July 13, 2021 mandate date.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a useful, citable reminder for postconviction practitioners calculating filing deadlines: courts sometimes conflate the date of a per curiam affirmance with the date of mandate, and this error can wrongly bar a… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.