Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

717 So. 2d 1070

Docket No. 98-1581.

Finch v. State

Jeffery Rinn FINCH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 19, 1998.

Rehearing Denied October 1, 1998.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1998-08-19

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently August 2004

21 state decisions

Relies on 569 So. 2d 439 - State v. Dist. Ct. of Appeal, First Dist. · 685 So. 2d 773 - Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-08-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*1071 Jeffery Rinn Finch, petitioner, pro se.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Trisha E. Meggs, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for respondent.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Jeffery 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.

¶5Finch 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.

¶6In 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 timebarred sometime in 1994.

¶7The promulgation of Rule 9.140(j), effective January 1, 1997, superseded State v. District Court.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.

¶8PETITION DENIED.

¶9WOLF, LAWRENCE and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

/717/so2d/1070 · .json · Public domain