Finch v. State, 98-1581
| Decision Date | 19 August 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-1581,98-1581 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2020 Jeffery Rinn FINCH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jeffery Rinn Finch, petitioner, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Trisha E. Meggs, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for respondent.
Jeffery Rinn Finch petitions this court for a belated appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(j)(1). We deny the petition because it is time-barred.
Finch alleges he was convicted and sentenced in 1992 of DUI Manslaughter and that he requested his trial attorney to file a notice of appeal. Further, Finch states that when he learned the appeal had not been taken, the 30 day period for noticing the appeal had expired.
In State v. District Court of Appeal, First District, 569 So.2d 439 (Fla.1990), the court announced that thereafter claims for belated appeal on grounds such as those presented here should be made in the trial court through a motion for postconviction relief. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b), Finch had two years to file his motion for postconviction relief and, when he did not do so, the claim was time-barred sometime in 1994.
The promulgation of Rule 9.140(j), effective January 1, 1997, superseded State v. District Court. See Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 685 So.2d 773, 807 (Fla.1996) (Committee Notes). However, there is no basis to conclude that the new rule revived State v. District Court claims which were time-barred under Rule 3.850(b). Accordingly, we find this petition for belated appeal is time-barred and, for that reason, it is denied.
PETITION DENIED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v. State, 98-2920.
...date of this rule." Thus, the instant petition, which was filed in July of 1998,1 was timely. The state's reliance on Finch v. State, 717 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) is misplaced because there, unlike the instant case, the time for raising the claim pursuant to Rule 3.850 had expired pri......
-
McLAURN v. State, 98-372
...date of rule 9.140(j), and was not revived by the creation of that rule, and deny the petition on that basis. See Finch v. State, 717 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). ERVIN, JOANOS and LAWRENCE, JJ., ...