From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Jan 14, 2015
154 So. 3d 1203 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

Summary

reversing trial court order that denied—as untimely under rule 3.170(l ) —a motion to withdraw plea, remanding to the trial court for consideration of the motion under rule 3.850, so long as it met the procedural requirements of that rule

Summary of this case from Hoskin v. State

Opinion

No. 2D14–1413.

2015-01-14

Thomas DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Reinaldo Ojeda, Judge.Thomas Davis, pro se.


Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Reinaldo Ojeda, Judge.
Thomas Davis, pro se. PER CURIAM.

Thomas Davis appeals the order denying his belated motion to withdraw plea, which the postconviction court denied as untimely without prejudice to file a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because the circuit court erred in not resolving the belated motion on the merits as if filed under rule 3.850, we reverse.

Davis's motion was styled as a motion to withdraw plea under rule 3.170( l ), and while the postconviction court correctly determined that the motion was untimely under that rule because it was not filed within thirty days of the rendition of the sentence, the analysis should not have ended there. When a defendant files a motion to withdraw plea under rule 3.170( l ), but the time to file such a motion has passed, the postconviction court should consider it under rule 3.850 so long as it meets the procedural requirements under that rule. See Franklin v. State, 31 So.3d 948, 948 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (citing Houghtaling v. State, 670 So.2d 1019, 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)).

As in Franklin, Davis's motion was timely, under oath, and raised claims that would be appropriate in a rule 3.850 motion. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to consider the motion under that rule.

Reversed and remanded.

VILLANTI, WALLACE, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Davis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Jan 14, 2015
154 So. 3d 1203 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

reversing trial court order that denied—as untimely under rule 3.170(l ) —a motion to withdraw plea, remanding to the trial court for consideration of the motion under rule 3.850, so long as it met the procedural requirements of that rule

Summary of this case from Hoskin v. State
Case details for

Davis v. State

Case Details

Full title:Thomas DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

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

Date published: Jan 14, 2015

Citations

154 So. 3d 1203 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

Citing Cases

Starks v. State

Appellant pro se appeals the trial court's dismissal of a motion to withdraw plea as untimely and argues that…

Hoskin v. State

Hoskin's motion was timely under rule 3.850, and was cognizable under that rule.See, e.g., Davis v. State,…