Court Opinion

ID: 2717712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-08-13 16:02:52.439464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:17.410618
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
 

  We reverse the trial court’s August 20, 2010 order dismissing Appellant’s first postconviction motion as facially insufficient. Just before expiration of the two-year time limit of rule 3.850(b), Appellant filed a
  
   pro se
  
  amended motion that was facially insufficient. The court dismissed this amended motion and gave Appellant until May 5, 2011, to file a second amended motion. Appellant retained new counsel on or about April 25, 2011, and on April 29, 2011, counsel requested a thirty-day extension of time to file a second amended motion alleging that he was in the process of obtaining the record. The court denied the extension of time and, following our relinquishment, entered a final order bringing an end to the postconviction proceedings.
  
   1
  

  We conclude that the motion originally filed through counsel on January 28, 2010, should not have been dismissed, as the motion was facially sufficient. We remand for consideration of this motion on the merits. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s request for an extension of the time to file a second amended motion.
 

   Reversed and Remanded.
  

  DAMOORGIAN, C.J., WARNER and FORST, JJ., concur.
 

   1
  

   . Appellant filed a premature appeal of the order dismissing his original motion and then
    
    *1182
    
   appealed the denial of his request for an extension of time to file the second amended motion. We relinquished jurisdiction and directed the trial court to enter a final appeal-able order. The court entered a final order bringing an end to the postconviction proceedings and we consolidated the two appeals.