LENNARD JENKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A motion for postconviction relief is timely if filed within two years of the supreme court denying discretionary review of a direct appeal.
Jenkins filed a motion for postconviction relief more than two years after his conviction was affirmed by the appellate court, but less than two years…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discretionary Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Lennard Jenkins appeals the dismissal of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court concluded that Jenkins failed to file his motion within two years after his judgment became final as required by Florida Rule Criminal Procedure 3.850(b). We reverse.
After Jenkins was convicted of various felonies, he appealed to this courc. We affirmed his convictions. See Jenkins v. State, 747 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Jenkins then sought, and obtained, review in the supreme court. Subsequently, the supreme court concluded that review had been improvidently granted and dismissed the matter. See Jenkins v. State, 781 So. 2d 1083, 1084 (Fla.2001).
Jenkins filed his motion for postconviction relief more than two years after this court affirmed his conviction, but less than two years after the supreme court dismissed his petition for review. A 3.850 motion is timely if filed within two years of when the supreme court denies discretionary review of a direct appeal. See Nava v. State, 659 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), holding limited by Beaty v. State, 701 So. 2d 856 (Fla.1997) (rule’s two-year limitation period is not tolled by seeking review of a per curiam affirmance in the supreme court).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial judge’s summary dismissal of Jenkins’s claim and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
THOMPSON, C.J. and HARRIS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Witt v. State, 861 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…r review before that body, then finality is not reached until proceedings are concluded in the Supreme Court. See Perkins v. State, 845 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); cf., Huff v. State, 569 So. 2d 1247 (Fla.1990). Accordingly, in Jenkins v. State, 821 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), we held that it was error to dismiss a 3.850 motion as untimely when it was filed within two years of a determination by the Supreme Court not to review a case in which it could exercise jurisdiction. See also Cargle v. State, 8…
Authorities Cited
- Beaty v. State, 701 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1997)
- Lennard Lapoint Jenkins v. State, 747 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Nava v. State, 659 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Brown v. State, 781 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 2001)