Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Ayo v. State

708 So. 2d 692 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Ayo v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. Moore v. State

    820 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 2002)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that a second or successive motion for post-conviction relief can be denied on the ground that it is an abuse of process if there is no reason for failing to raise the issues in the previous motion

    Obviously the trial court is in the best position to weigh the equities involved and, given these facts, it was clearly within the court's discretion to refuse to entertain any more requests for extensions pertaining to the public records issue. See Ayo v. State, 708 So.2d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding that absent an abuse of discretion, a trial court's decision to permit or refuse to allow an amendment to a 3.850 motion will not be disturbed on appeal). Although in its July 14, 1999, order granting Moore an extension to file his second amended 3.850, the trial court stated, "No further extensions of time will be entertained," the court nonetheless granted Moore a 30-day extension.

  2. Ambroise v. State

    932 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 1 times

    However, where a judgment is not appealed, the time limit is two years and thirty days. See Ayo v. State, 708 So.2d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). So calculated, it appears that the first motion for extension of time was filed prior to the expiration of the Rule 3.850 time limit. The Florida Supreme Court has held that the time for filing a Rule 3.850 motion may be extended.

  3. Hampton v. State

    837 So. 2d 611 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 11 times

    In Hampton's case, since he took no appeal, his judgment and sentence became final thirty days after they were rendered; i.e., the time his appellate rights expired. See Ayo v. State, 708 So.2d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Davis v. State, 687 So.2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). See also Mitchell v. State, 818 So.2d 696 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

  4. Shaw v. State

    837 So. 2d 532 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

    AFFIRMED. See Ayo v. State, 708 So.2d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). THOMPSON, C.J., SHARP, W., and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

  5. Mitchell v. State

    818 So. 2d 696 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 2 times

    A rule 3.850 motion is timely if filed within two years and thirty days of a judgment and sentence when there has been no direct appeal, as occurred in this case. See Ayo v. State, 708 So.2d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Mitchell was sentenced on July 16, 1999, and this motion was filed on August 8, 2001. However, Mitchell filed a prior motion pursuant to rule 3.800, in which he asserted that his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum and there was no factual basis for his plea.

  6. AYO v. STATE

    718 So. 2d 840 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 3 times

    On appeal, this court affirmed the denial of the second request for a time extension and the amended 3.850 motion, but remanded the case for a ruling on the original 3.850 motion, which had been filed within the two year time period. See Ayo v. State, 708 So.2d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). This proceeding involves the denial of the original 3.850 motion.