mailbox rule in Florida

2024See Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla. 1992) (explaining that under the mailbox rule, a petition, notice, or motion from a pro se inmate “is deemed filed at the moment in time when the inmate loses control over the document by 3 entrusting its further delivery or processing to agents of the state” (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275 (1988))).

2024"Under the so-called mailbox rule, the timeliness of a pro se inmate's pleading is measured from the date the inmate places the document in the hands of the prison (or jail) official for mailing." Scullock v. Gee, 133 So. 3d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); see also Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla. 1992).

2014See Saavedra v. State, 59 So. 3d 191, 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2000) (holding that under the mailbox rule, the date that a motion is placed into the hands of prison officials for filing is the date that the motion is considered filed). 2 On August 19, 2014, the clerk of this Court issued and mailed to Appellant a standard “Acknowledgement of New Case Letter.” Appellant contends that he never received that letter.

2014Pursuant to the mailbox rule, the defendant filed his second rule 3.850 motion on December 6, 2013, as evidenced by the certificate of service which indicates that it was placed in the hands of prison officials for mailing by the defendant on that date. 1 See Thompson v. State, 761 So.2d 324 (Fla.2000) (holding that a certificate of service provides presumptive proof of filing date under the mailbox rule).

2017See Scullock v. Gee, 133 So. 3d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); see also Griffin v. Sistuenck, 816 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla. 2002) ("Under the mailbox rule, a notice is deemed filed when it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing.").

2017See Scullock v. Gee, 133 So.3d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); see also Griffin v. Sistuenck, 816 So.2d 600, 601 (Fla. 2002) ("Under the mailbox rule, a notice is deemed filed when it is delivered to prison. authorities for mailing.”).

2016See Mathews v. State, 958 So.2d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (reversing summary denial of motion for leave to refile motion for postconviction relief and remanding ' for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on finding facially sufficient defendant’s allegation that he timely filed the original motion under the mailbox rule); see also Pagan v. State, 899 So.2d 1203, 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (reversing and remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant timely filed his motion by entrusting it to prison officials within filing period). *635 Accordingly, we reve

2015See Griffin v. Sistuenck, 816 So.2d 600, 601 (Fla.2002) (“Under the mailbox rule, a notice' is deemed filed when it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing.”); Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614, 617 (Fla.1992) (holding that under the “mailbox rule” a pro se inmate’s document is “deemed filed at the moment in time when the inmate loses control over the document by entrusting its further delivery or processing,” which is usually when “the inmate places the document in the hands of prison officials”); Lawson v. State, 107 So.3d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (quoting Pagan v. State, 899 So.2d 12

2024See Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla. 1992) (explaining that under the mailbox rule, a petition, notice, or motion from a pro se inmate “is deemed filed at the moment in time when the inmate loses control over the document by 3 entrusting its further delivery or processing to agents of the state” (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275 (1988))).

2018The mailbox rule was first adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 , 108 S.Ct. 2379 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), and is now codified at Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.420(a)(2).

2024"Under the so-called mailbox rule, the timeliness of a pro se inmate's pleading is measured from the date the inmate places the document in the hands of the prison (or jail) official for mailing." Scullock v. Gee, 133 So. 3d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); see also Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla. 1992).

2017See Scullock v. Gee, 133 So.3d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); see also Griffin v. Sistuenck, 816 So.2d 600, 601 (Fla. 2002) ("Under the mailbox rule, a notice is deemed filed when it is delivered to prison. authorities for mailing.”).

2016Rivera v. Dep’t of Health, 177 So. 3d 1, 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“Now, under rule 9.420(a)(2), in order to receive the benefit of the mailbox rule, an inmate housed in an institution that has a system designed for handling legal mail which provides a way to record when the document was relinquished to institution officials for mailing, must use that system.”) OSTERHAUS, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.

2016Rivera v. Dep’t of Health, 177 So.3d 1, 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“Now, under rule 9.420(a)(2), in order to receive the benefit of the mailbox rule, an inmate housed in an institution that has a system designed for handling legal mail which provides a way to record when the document was relinquished to institution officials for mailing, must use that system.”) OSTERHAUS, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

2013See id.; see also Childers v. State, 972 So.2d 307, 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

2010See Childers v. State, 972 So.2d 307, 308 (Fla.2d DCA 2008); McCormick v. State, 961 So.2d 1099, 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Cunniff v. State, 950 So.2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

2019It further set forth, “If Pagan establishes the timely entrustment of his motion, and if the State challenges [his] assertion that the motion was timely filed, ‘there is a rebuttable presumption that the document was timely filed on the date reflected in the certificate of service.’” Id.; see also McDonald v. State, 192 So. 3d 633, 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (reversing and remanding for an evidentiary hearing where although the trial court found that the appellant’s rule 3.850 motion was never filed with the clerk or served on the state, the appellant’s second addendum “bears a prison stamp indic

1999Weekly D1897 , 1898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) wherein the court concluded: Iii Bray v. State, 702 So.2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), we reversed with directions to the trial court to conduct an eviden-tiary hearing to determine whether the motion was timely filed in accordance with the mailbox rule articulated in Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614 (Fla.1992)(holding that a 3.850 motion which is turned over to prison authorities for mailing within the two-year limitation period is timely even though it is not stamped by the court clerk until after the time limit has expired).

2026Kwapil v. State, 44 So. 3d 229, 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010 (“Because Kwapil provided his rule 3.800(c) motion to prison officials before the sixty days expired, it was timely filed under the mailbox rule.

2013Kwapil, 44 So.3d at 230 .

2025See Harrell v. Harrell, 879 So. 2d 87, 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“The mailbox rule, which applies to prisoners, has no application here.”); Raysor v. Raysor, 706 So. 2d 400, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

2004Raysor, 706 So.2d at 401 .

2010See Childers v. State, 972 So.2d 307, 308 (Fla.2d DCA 2008); McCormick v. State, 961 So.2d 1099, 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Cunniff v. State, 950 So.2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

2010See Childers, 972 So.2d at 308 ; McCormick, 961 So.2d at 1101 ; Cunniff, 950 So.2d at 1256 .

2007See Pagan v. State, 899 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Jones v. State, 785 So.2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Bray v. State, 702 So.2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

2005See Jones v. State, 785 So.2d 561, 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant timely created the postconviction document and entrusted it to prison officials).

2025See Harrell v. Harrell, 879 So. 2d 87, 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“The mailbox rule, which applies to prisoners, has no application here.”); Raysor v. Raysor, 706 So. 2d 400, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

2022The Court further noted that in Vacek v. United States Postal Service, 447 F. 3d 1248 (9th Cir. 2006), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit noted that since the decision in Bailey v. United States, 642 F.2d 344, 347 (9th Cir. 1981), “virtually every circuit to have ruled on the issue has held that the 13 mailbox rule does not apply to [FTCA] claims, regardless of whether it might apply to other federal common law claims.” Vacek, 447 F.3d at 1252 .

2022For example, in Lightfoot v. United States, 564 F. 3d 625, 628 (3d Cir. 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected the mailbox rule in the context of sovereign immunity and held that with respect to whether plaintiff had “presented” his claim against the United States Postal Service, plaintiff had to “demonstrate that the Federal agency was in actual receipt of the claim, . . . .” The Court stated that other jurisdictions had “almost uniformly concluded that the term ‘presented’ in the filing of an administrative claim means more than merely mailing the claim.” Id

2022For example, in Lightfoot v. United States, 564 F. 3d 625, 628 (3d Cir. 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected the mailbox rule in the context of sovereign immunity and held that with respect to whether plaintiff had “presented” his claim against the United States Postal Service, plaintiff had to “demonstrate that the Federal agency was in actual receipt of the claim, . . . .” The Court stated that other jurisdictions had “almost uniformly concluded that the term ‘presented’ in the filing of an administrative claim means more than merely mailing the claim.” Id

2019It further set forth, “If Pagan establishes the timely entrustment of his motion, and if the State challenges [his] assertion that the motion was timely filed, ‘there is a rebuttable presumption that the document was timely filed on the date reflected in the certificate of service.’” Id.; see also McDonald v. State, 192 So. 3d 633, 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (reversing and remanding for an evidentiary hearing where although the trial court found that the appellant’s rule 3.850 motion was never filed with the clerk or served on the state, the appellant’s second addendum “bears a prison stamp indic

2019It further set forth, “If Pagan establishes the timely entrustment of his motion, and if the State challenges [his] assertion that the motion was timely filed, ‘there is a rebuttable presumption that the document was timely filed on the date reflected in the certificate of service.’” Id.; see also McDonald v. State, 192 So. 3d 633, 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (reversing and remanding for an evidentiary hearing where although the trial court found that the appellant’s rule 3.850 motion was never filed with the clerk or served on the state, the appellant’s second addendum “bears a prison stamp indic

2016See Mathews v. State, 958 So.2d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (reversing summary denial of motion for leave to refile motion for postconviction relief and remanding ' for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on finding facially sufficient defendant’s allegation that he timely filed the original motion under the mailbox rule); see also Pagan v. State, 899 So.2d 1203, 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (reversing and remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant timely filed his motion by entrusting it to prison officials within filing period). *635 Accordingly, we reve

2015See Griffin v. Sistuenck, 816 So.2d 600, 601 (Fla.2002) (“Under the mailbox rule, a notice' is deemed filed when it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing.”); Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614, 617 (Fla.1992) (holding that under the “mailbox rule” a pro se inmate’s document is “deemed filed at the moment in time when the inmate loses control over the document by entrusting its further delivery or processing,” which is usually when “the inmate places the document in the hands of prison officials”); Lawson v. State, 107 So.3d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (quoting Pagan v. State, 899 So.2d 12

2014See Saavedra v. State, 59 So. 3d 191, 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2000) (holding that under the mailbox rule, the date that a motion is placed into the hands of prison officials for filing is the date that the motion is considered filed). 2 On August 19, 2014, the clerk of this Court issued and mailed to Appellant a standard “Acknowledgement of New Case Letter.” Appellant contends that he never received that letter.

2014Admin. 2.514(a)(1)(C) (providing that when the last day of a computational period is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday); Bailey, 136 So.3d at 616 (“The mailbox rule applies to motions filed in accordance with rule 3.800(c).

2011See Davis v. State, 56 So.3d 860, 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); see also Joseph v. State, 835 So.2d 1221 , 1222 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

2011See Davis v. State, 56 So.3d 860, 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); see also Joseph v. State, 835 So.2d 1221 , 1222 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

2010We recognize that in Brantley, 685 So.2d at 32, this court declined to decide whether the mailbox rule applied to the filing of a motion to reduce sentence.

2010See Atkins, 851 So.2d at 829 .