Court Opinion

ID: 9384891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 15:03:13.171919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:57.602530
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed April 5, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                            No. 3D22-1520
                     Lower Tribunal No. F13-26313A
                          ________________

                           Marcelyn Mathieu,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                         The State of Florida,
                                  Appellee.

      An appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from
the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Teresa Pooler, Judge.

     AsiliA Law Firm P.A., and Jeremy McLymont, for appellant.

      Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed.   See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b) (“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 . . . .”); Cave v.

State, 289 So. 3d 980, 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (“For purposes of [Florida

Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850], the two-year period begins to run when

appellate proceedings have concluded and the court issues a mandate

. . . .”); Mathieu v. State, 258 So. 3d 528, 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (affirming

defendant’s conviction by jury and sentence on charges of second-degree

murder with a firearm and accessory after the fact); see also Card v. Dugger,

512 So. 2d 829, 830 (Fla. 1987) (“Where an initial motion for post-conviction

relief raises the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the trial court may

summarily deny a successive motion which raises additional grounds for

ineffective assistance of counsel.”).

                                        2