Opinion ID: 1862059
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: belated motion for postconviction relief

Text: We now address the issue regarding the right to belatedly file a motion for postconviction relief. In this Court's decision in State v. Weeks, 166 So.2d 892, 896 (Fla. 1964), we made clear that [postconviction] remedies are subject to the more flexible standards of due process announced in the Fifth Amendment, Constitution of the United States. For example, although a prisoner has no Sixth Amendment right to postconviction counsel, in Weeks and Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363 (Fla.1979), we held that due process required the appointment of postconviction counsel when a prisoner filed a substantially meritorious postconviction motion and a hearing on the motion was potentially so complex that the assistance of counsel was needed. We agree with the district court below that due process entitles a prisoner to a hearing on a claim that he or she missed the deadline to file a rule 3.850 motion because his or her attorney had agreed to file the motion but failed to do so in a timely manner. We hold that, if the prisoner prevails at the hearing, he or she is authorized to belatedly file a rule 3.850 motion challenging his or her conviction or sentence. We also agree with Judge Sharp's concurring opinion that the prisoner's claim under these specific circumstances should be presented to the court in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which would not be barred under rule 3.850(h) because it would come within the final clause thereof. See Ward v. Dugger, 508 So.2d 778, 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)(construing a prisoner's letter to the district court as a habeas petition and finding that the prisoner might be entitled to file a belated motion for postconviction relief if the actions of her attorney had frustrated her intention to file such a motion in a timely fashion). For the reasons expressed, we answer the rephrased certified questions in the affirmative, approve the decision below, and disapprove Martin v. Pafford, 583 So.2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Steele is entitled to petition the circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus. Upon receiving the petition, the court will conduct a hearing on whether Kehoe undertook to file a rule 3.850 motion on Steele's behalf, but failed to timely file the motion. If Steele prevails at the hearing, he will have the right to belatedly file a rule 3.850 motion. If Steele's belated postconviction motion is granted and he receives relief from his conviction or sentence, he may then pursue the legal malpractice claim against Kehoe. This case also establishes a need to amend rule 3.850(b) by adding a provision to allow a belated appeal in this type of circumstance. We hereby amend rule 3.850(b) to include the following additional provision (the new language is indicated by underlining): (b) Time Limitations. A motion to vacate a sentence that exceeds the limits provided by law may be filed at any time. No other motion shall be filed or considered pursuant to this rule if filed more than 2 years after the judgment and sentence become final in a noncapital case or more than 1 year after the judgment and sentence become final in a capital case in which a death sentence has been imposed unless it alleges that (1) the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the movant's attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence, or (2) the fundamental constitutional right asserted was not established within the period provided for herein and has been held to apply retroactively, or (3) the defendant retained counsel to timely file a 3.850 motion and counsel, through neglect, failed to file the motion. This provision shall become effective immediately upon the filing of this opinion. We direct that this rule amendment be published in the next edition of The Florida Bar News. Any interested person may file a comment with the Court on or before July 1, 1999. It is so ordered. HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., concurs in result only and dissents with an opinion. WELLS, J., concurring in result only and dissenting. I cannot join in the majority opinion because I conclude that the majority opinion confuses this state's law in respect to due process as it pertains to postconviction relief and in respect to habeas. I adopt the reasoning of Chief Judge Griffin in her dissenting opinion in the Fifth District's decision. Chief Judge Griffin's reasoning is compatible with the long-standing case law from this Court in State v. Weeks, 166 So.2d 892 (Fla.1964), and Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363 (Fla.1979), and the recent decision from this Court in Lambrix v. State, 698 So.2d 247 (Fla.1996). Though the majority makes passing reference to Graham and Weeks, the majority does not deal with the patent conflict pointed out in the indisputably sound analysis of Chief Judge Griffin. Therefore, I disagree with that portion of the majority opinion entitled Belated Motion for Postconviction Relief and do not join in it. I concur with that portion of the majority opinion entitled Legal Malpractice Arising from Criminal Prosecution. Further, I concur in adopting the amendment to rule 3.850(b) adding subdivision (3). I would make the rule applicable to Steele, as we have the authority to do, and remand to the circuit court with directions to have a hearing as to whether Steele may proceed on the basis of rule 3.850(b)(3). Therefore, solely on this basis, I concur with the result reached by the majority here and the majority in the district court.