Caraballo v. State
Caraballo, whose prior rule 3.850 motion had been denied, filed a Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(3) motion alleging his trial counsel committed fraud on the postconviction court by testifying he had no competency concerns despite contrary case notes. The lower court dismissed the motion as untimely under rule 1.540's one-year limit, but the Sixth DCA reversed, holding the motion should have been treated as a rule 3.850 motion because postconviction proceedings are governed exclusively by the criminal rules, not rule 1.540.
Key facts
- Caraballo filed a motion alleging his trial counsel committed fraud on the postconviction court by testifying he had no competency concerns despite contrary case notes in counsel's own records.
- The lower court dismissed the motion as untimely under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540's one-year time limit, treating it as a civil motion rather than a criminal postconviction motion.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion clarifies that a criminal defendant's collateral motion alleging fraud on the postconviction court—even if labeled under civil rule 1.540—must be construed and adjudicated under Florida Rule of Criminal… — 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.