From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Washington v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 13, 2006
937 So. 2d 271 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

Opinion

No. 4D06-1999.

September 13, 2006.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Broward County, Paul L. Backman, J.

Victor G. Washington, Miami, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Claudine M. LaFrance, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.


Victor Washington appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We reverse that ruling as the lower court should not have reached the merits of the motion. We remand with instructions to grant Washington's motion to withdraw.

Washington filed his rule 3.850 motion on October 26, 2005 and the lower court ordered a state response on November 21, 2005. On April 4, 2006, prior to the state filing a response, Washington attempted to withdraw his rule 3.850 motion. Washington believed his postconviction motion was premature because he wanted to pursue a belated appeal of his open pleas and sentence. Washington provided to prison officials this motion to withdraw the postconviction pleading three days before the state filed its response on April 7, 2006. The lower court denied the postconviction motion without ruling on the motion to withdraw. It appears the lower court may not have been provided a copy of the motion to withdraw prior to ruling on the merits of the postconviction motion.

Washington was entitled to withdraw his rule 3.850 motion up to and until the lower court ruled on the merits, so long as the state did not show prejudice. See Carvalleria v. State, 675 So.2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (citing Simon v. State, 768 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)). The state has failed to show how it would be prejudiced by the voluntary dismissal of the rule 3.850 motion. Instead, the state incorrectly contends Washington is not entitled to a belated appeal from an open plea. Whether Washington has grounds for a belated appeal is irrelevant to the instant proceeding and this opinion should not be read to indicate any decision on such a petition.

Where the state would suffer no prejudice from allowing withdrawal of a rule 3.850 motion, our supreme court has noted the denial of the motion to withdraw "constitute[s] an abuse of discretion." Clark v. State, 491 So.2d 545, 546 (Fla. 1986). While the lower court, in the instant case, did not deny the motion to withdraw, as did the lower court in Clark, the inadvertent failure to grant such relief, when timely requested, should not be allowed to stand. Washington timely sought to withdraw his motion for postconviction relief and thus it would be an abuse of discretion to not allow the motion to be withdrawn. We remand to the lower court to grant Washington's motion to withdraw and to dismiss his rule 3.850 motion without prejudice.

Reversed and remanded.

GUNTHER, WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Washington v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 13, 2006
937 So. 2d 271 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
Case details for

Washington v. State

Case Details

Full title:Victor G. WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Sep 13, 2006

Citations

937 So. 2d 271 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

Citing Cases

Hardy v. State

We agree, and the State has properly conceded error. Pursuant to Washington v. State, 937 So.2d 271 (Fla. 4th…

Hampton v. State

See Jackson v. State, 527 So.2d 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (granting certiorari relief from trial court's…