YILEYMI SUAREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that while a motion for extension of time for a postconviction relief motion can be filed after the deadline, it requires a showing of both good cause and excusable neglect.
[1] A motion for extension of time to file a motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850 may be filed after the expiration of the two-year deadline if the defendant dem…
[2] A defendant seeking an extension of time to file a rule 3.850 motion must demonstrate excusable neglect when the request is made after the expiration of the original dead…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant's deadline to file a postconviction relief motion expired. She later filed a motion for an extension, citing difficulty obtaining docume…
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 Good Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal of an order denying an extension of time for filing a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.
Defendant-appellant Yileymi Suarez was convicted at trial of vehicular homicide and sentenced to imprisonment. Suarez v. State, 879 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Her petition for review in the Florida Supreme Court was denied on January 31, 2005. Her two-year time limit for filing a rule 3.850 motion expired on January 31, 2007.
The defendant filed her motion for extension of time on August 14, 2008. She alleged that she was having difficulty obtaining documents from her trial counsel. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant has appealed.
The trial court denied the motion on the theory that the defendant was required to file her motion for extension of time prior to the expiration of the two-year deadline of rule 3.850. We respectfully disagree with that part of the trial court’s order.
The Florida Supreme Court has held that the deadline for filing a rule 3.850 motion may be extended under rule 3.050. Under rule 3.050(1), the time period may be enlarged for good cause if the defendant files the extension request prior to the expiration of the two-year period. State v. Boyd, 846 So.2d 458, 460 (Fla.2003). Under the facts of Boyd, rule 3.050(1) was the relevant provision.
The Fourth District has explained that rule 3.050(2) allows a motion for extension to be filed after the two-year deadline. Parker v. State, 907 So.2d 694, 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Under subdivision (2), there is a more stringent standard. The defendant must show both good cause and that “the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect....” Id.; Parker, 907 So.2d at 695.
In the present case, the defendant’s motion did not address the issue of excusable neglect. We therefore affirm the order now before us. This ruling is without prejudice to the defendant to refile the motion if she has a good faith basis for asserting good cause and excusable neglect.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beloni Petit-Frere v. State, 108 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…Parker v. State, 907 So. 2d 694, 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (allowing motions for enlargement of time to be filed after the rule 3.850 deadline in accordance with rule 3.050, which requires the movant to demonstrate excusable neglect); Suarez v. State, 8 So. 3d 1226, 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (same).2 [*684] We therefore reverse and remand for the postconviction court to consider Petit-Frere’s motion filed February 20, 2012, under rule 3.050. If the court grants the motion, Petih-Frere must file his supplemental…
-
Higgins v. State, 37 So. 3d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…urt has determined that a court can enlarge the strict two-year time limit of Rule 3.850(b) by application of Rule 3.050(2). See Parker v. State, 907 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); see also State v. Boyd, 846 So. 2d 458 (Fla.2003); Suarez v. State, 8 So. 3d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Although we do not think that the appellant alleged either good cause or excusable neglect in his motion for enlargement of time, nevertheless, the trial court granted the motion. It cannot deny those claims as untimely, having m…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mahlard K. Boyd, 846 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2003)
- Parker v. State, 907 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- The Century Sur. Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 879 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)