Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2005

Rivas v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided July 20, 2005 · Cope, Rothenberg, Shepherd

906 So. 2d 1193; 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11071; 2005 WL 1681403 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Kuiken v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)
Roberts v. Roberts (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

SHEPHERD, J.

Defendant appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion, which the trial court denied as successive. We reverse.

A review of the motions previously filed by defendant demonstrates that the June 4, 2004 Rule 3.850 motion under consideration was timely and not successive.1 Defendant filed several Rule 3.800 motions attacking his sentence, and filed a motion entitled “Motion for Post Conviction Re-liefTixtension of Time” in which he merely requested an extension of time to file a Rule 3.850 motion. The trial court denied this motion as successive. In the June 4 motion, entitled “Motion for Rehearing and Clarification Pursuant to Rule 3.850(g),” defendant raised several ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims. Because the previous motions either sought relief pursuant to Rule 3.800 or an extension of time to file a Rule 3.850 motion, the court erred in denying the June 4 motion as successive. See Ramirez v. State, 822 So.2d 593, 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for consideration of the June 4 motion.

Reversed and remanded.

. The state concedes that the June 4 motion was filed timely.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.