From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hall v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Apr 27, 2012
86 So. 3d 590 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

Opinion

No. 5D12–446.

2012-04-27

Henry N. HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Alan S. Apte, Judge. Henry N. Hall, Blountstown, pro se. No Appearance for Appellee.


3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Alan S. Apte, Judge.
Henry N. Hall, Blountstown, pro se. No Appearance for Appellee.
GRIFFIN, J.

Appellant, Henry N. Hall [“Hall”], seeks review of the trial court's denial of his rule 3.850 motion and amended 3.850 motion. Denial was based on a finding of untimeliness. We affirm in part and reverse in part. This Court's mandate in the direct appeal of Hall's judgment and sentence was issued on September 26, 2007, making the original post-conviction motion, filed on September 15, 2009, timely. Rosado v. State, 654 So.2d 623 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). That motion must, therefore, be considered on its merits. The “amended” motion, which added a new ground, was correctly dismissed as untimely.

AFFIRMED in part; and REVERSED in part.

PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hall v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Apr 27, 2012
86 So. 3d 590 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)
Case details for

Hall v. State

Case Details

Full title:Henry N. HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Date published: Apr 27, 2012

Citations

86 So. 3d 590 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

Citing Cases

Boatwright v. State

However, the court then inconsistently wrote that because Appellant's postconviction claims were related to…