Conionilli v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4868
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Conionilli was sentenced in 1990 as a habitual violent felony offender to life with a 15-year minimum-mandatory term for burglary with assault; the sentence was affirmed on direct appeal.
- In postconviction, he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for misrepresenting plea offers and for misadvising about release after 15 years.
- He argued that the misadvice made him choose trial instead of accepting the plea offer that allowed release after 15 years.
- He sought relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, arguing a newly discovered fact and timing discussions with parole authorities.
- The trial court held his claim time-barred under Ey v. State (2008); on appeal, he contends a two-year post-Ey window should apply, per Green and related cases.
- The court ultimately affirmed the denial, applying Canseco and related pre/post-Ey timing rules to find untimely filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ey created a post-Ey window for timeliness | Conionilli seeks a two-year post-Ey window for misadvice claims. | Ey controls timing; no eligible window exists for this claim. | No viable post-Ey window; claim time-barred. |
| If a post-Ey window exists, can Conionilli use it given notice in 2004 | Window should permit timely filing since notice occurred before Ey. | Notice in 2004 predates post-Ey window and cannot restart the clock. | Even with a hypothetical window, untimely under pre-Ey clock. |
| Whether the pre-Ey two-year rule applies to misadvice about sentencing | Pre-Ey clock could apply if timely under Ey framework. | Pre-Ey rule does not save time-barred postconviction claims after Ey. | Pre-Ey rule does not revive this late-filed claim; Ey governs final deadline. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ey v. State, 982 So.2d 618 (Fla. 2008) (established two-year timing from final judgment for rule 3.850 claims)
- Green v. State, 944 So.2d 208 (Fla. 2006) (introduced two-year window for final claims and post-Green timing)
- Canseco v. State, 52 So.3d 575 (Fla. 2010) (narrowed availability of Green’s window for those with notice long before filing)
- Peart v. State, 756 So.2d 42 (Fla. 2000) (pre-Ey timing: two-year clock runs from conviction finalization)
- Singleton v. State, 981 So.2d 1259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (pre-Ey rule: clock starts when threat of consequences becomes known)
- Flint v. State, 13 So.3d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (illustrates pre-Ey timing considerations for misadvice claims)
- Beaty v. State, 701 So.2d 856 (Fla. 1997) (two-year period begins at issuance of appellate mandate)