GREGORY VAN WILSON, 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.
The court held that the defendant was entitled to tolling of the two-year time limit for filing a Rule 3.850 motion because he was in federal custody and lacked access to Florida legal materials.
The defendant appealed the circuit court's order summarily denying his Rule 3.850 motion as untimely. He argued for tolling of the time limit due to b…
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 Tolling Of Time Limits cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals the circuit court’s order summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion as not having been filed within the rule’s two-year time limit. He argues that he was entitled to tolling of the two-year time limit because he was in federal custody in South Carolina and did not have access to Florida legal materials. See Demps v. State, 696 So.2d 1296, 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (the two-year time limit by which the defendant had to file his rule 3.850 motion was tolled during the time he was incarcerated in another state and did not have access to Florida legal materials or a reasonable alternative).
We agree with the defendant’s argument. Nothing in the record conclusively shows that he had access to Florida legal materials or a reasonable alternative within the two-year time limit while he was in federal custody or that he had a meaningful opportunity to file a rule 3.850 motion before he was taken into federal custody. On the contrary, the record shows that federal authorities arrested the defendant shortly after he entered the plea in this case. Moreover, one of his postconviction claims did not arise until he was sentenced for the federal charge.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the circuit court to allow the defendant to establish predicate facts to avoid rule 3.850’s two-year time limitation. See Piggott v. State, 14 So.3d 298, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (declining to adopt Demps, but remanding to allow the defendant to establish predicate facts to avoid rule 3.850’s two-year time limitation).
Reversed and Remanded.
WARNER, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. State, 123 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed without prejudice to the appellant filing a postconviction motion which includes predicate facts on which he seeks to avoid the time bars of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Wilson v. State, 105 So. 3d 667, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Piggott v. State, 14 So. 3d 298, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). WARNER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Demps v. State, 696 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Piggott v. State, 14 So. 3d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)