Court Opinion

ID: 9946750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 14:03:13.700851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:23:54.943318
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                      Case No. 5D23-2819
                  LT Case No. 2019-CF-000325
                 _____________________________

TONDA IHETU ROYAL,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

3.850 appeal from the Circuit Court for Flagler County.
Terence R. Perkins, Judge.

Tonda Ihetu Royal, Milton, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

                          March 1, 2024

PER CURIAM.

     Appellant moved for postconviction relief under Florida Rule
of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He filed his motion on July 12, 2023.
The trial court denied the motion as untimely because in the
court’s view, Appellant filed it “more than two years after his
judgment and sentence became final.” Appellant moved for
rehearing, arguing that his motion was timely based on the date of
the mandate in his direct appeal. The trial court denied rehearing,
reasoning that the Fifth District’s decision “was finalized on April
20, 2021, which would be the starting point for Defendant’s 2-year
time limitation pursuant to rule 3.850(b).”

     This court affirmed Appellant’s judgment and sentence on
April 20, 2021. Royal v. State, 320 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)
(Table). However, this court did not issue the mandate until July
13, 2021. The date of the mandate starts the two-year filing
window under rule 3.850. See Beaty v. State, 701 So. 2d 856, 857
(Fla. 1997) (“[T]he two-year period for filing a motion for
postconviction relief began to run upon the issuance of [the district
court’s] mandate.”); Cave v. State, 289 So. 3d 980, 981 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2020) (“For purposes of [rule 3.850], the two-year period
begins to run when appellate proceedings have concluded and the
court issues a mandate . . . .”). Thus, Appellant’s motion, filed on
July 12, 2023, was timely.

    Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to
consider the merits of Appellant’s motion.

    REVERSED and REMANDED.

WALLIS, JAY, and MACIVER, JJ., concur.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                                 2