IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
MICHAEL LAWRENCE NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
CASSIDY, FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
Appellant,
CASE NO. 1D15-868
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed November 5, 2015.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.
Michael Flowers, Judge.
Michael Lawrence Cassidy, pro se, Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We previously affirmed Appellant’s judgment and sentence on his direct
appeal. Cassidy v. State, 130 So. 3d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (table). We now
affirm the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1245 (Fla. 2004) (“The remedy of habeas corpus
is not available in Florida to obtain the kind of collateral postconviction relief
available in the sentencing court pursuant to rule 3.850.”). This affirmance is
without prejudice to Appellant’s seeking relief pursuant to Florida Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.850 on his claims regarding count 3 of his judgment and
sentence. See Thomas v. State, 935 So. 2d 91, 91 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
We do not pass upon the viability or merits of Appellant’s claims, which is
for the trial court’s determination if the claims are properly presented. Any motion
filed under Rule 3.850 must comply with the content and certification requirements
of the rule. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b), (b)(1), (c), (h), (n). In most circumstances, it
must be filed within two years after issuance of mandate. Breland v. State, 58 So.
3d 326, 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (two-year time limit under Rule 3.850
commences upon appellate court’s issuance of mandate). In Appellant’s direct
appeal, mandate issued on February 7, 2014; therefore, the two years within which
to file a motion under Rule 3.850 will expire on February 7, 2016. Court records
indicate that Appellant filed an amended motion under Rule 3.850 after filing the
present habeas petition, the contents of which are not before this Court. If not
already asserted in the recent amended motions under Rule 3.850, Appellant may
assert his claims regarding count 3 in a timely and facially sufficient motion that
complies with Rule 3.850.
WOLF and KELSEY, JJ., concur; THOMAS, J., concurs in result only.
2