Joshua A. Masters v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED JOSHUA A MASTERS, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D16-1580 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed August 5, 2016 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County, Patti A. Christensen, Judge. Joshua A. Masters, Wewahitchka, pro se. No Appearance for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Joshua A. Masters appeals the order denying his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied as untimely. We reverse. On January 13, 2012, Masters pled no contest to the charge of home invasion robbery with a deadly weapon. On February 7, 2012, the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison. Masters appealed and this Court affirmed. Masters v. State, 107 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). The mandate issued on February 22, 2013. In 2013, Masters filed his first rule 3.850 motion. However, before the trial court ruled on the motion, he sought to dismiss it, which the trial court granted without prejudice to file another rule 3.850 motion within the two-year time limit. Masters filed the current motion pursuant to the mailbox rule on January 5, 2015. The court denied the motion as untimely. This was incorrect as the motion was filed forty-eight days prior to the expiration of the two-year deadline. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b); Beaty v. State, 701 So. 2d 856, 857 (Fla. 1997) (holding two-year period for filing rule 3.850 motion begins to run upon issuance of direct appeal mandate). We reverse and remand for the trial court to consider Masters’s rule 3.850 motion, timely filed pursuant to the mailbox rule on January 5, 2015, within two years of the February 22, 2013, direct appeal mandate. REVERSED AND REMANDED. LAWSON, C.J., ORFINGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.