Haynes v. StateHaynes v. State
No appearance for appellee.
KLEIN, J.
In Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So.2d 931 (Fla. 1999), the Florida Supreme Court held that a prisoner should be allowed to file a belated rule 3.850 motion, if the deadlinе is missed because the prisoner‘s lawyer had agreеd to file the motion and failed to do so. Appellаnt asks us to extend Steele to his situation, in which he was relying on a Virginia сorporation named CompuData-Freedom Press, Inc. to obtain counsel to file his motion on time. We conclude that we cannot.
CompuData Freedоm Press, Inc., based in Woodbridge, Virginia, lists on its letterhead “Paralegal Services—Parole Planning—Business Services—Teсhnical Referral Services.” The letterhead alsо contains a separate post office bоx for a “Prisoner Support Division.” Appellant has attаched correspondence to him from CompuData indicating that CompuData intended to file something оn behalf of appellant and that it was in the process of seeking counsel in Florida to do so. Also attached is a copy of a check payable to CompuData in the amount of $700.
The letters from ComрuData indicate that CompuData was retained by аppellant in ample time to have filed a motion. CompuData wrote appellant several letters which led appellant to believe that they wеre working on his case and would file something, but it was never done. One of the letters said that CompuData currently hаd “one resource attorney in Coral Gables, Mr. Michael O‘Kane, and our lead attorney who is locatеd in Detroit, Michigan, who is currently seeking his license to prаctice in Florida.” That letter, dated May 31, 1996, indicated thаt all of their Florida cases, which included appеllant‘s, were “planned for filing” in June, 1996. CompuData apparently never did anything for appellant, and it can bе inferred from their correspondence that appellant, as well as other prisoners, were simply bеing strung along for a rather unfortunate ride.
In Steele, our supreme сourt held that, on receiving a petition such as that filеd by Steele, the trial court should “conduct a hearing on whether [сounsel] undertook to file a rule 3.850 motion on Steelе‘s behalf, but failed to timely file the motion.” The court also, in Steele, amended
Although we are sympathetic with the plight оf appellant, we do not see how he would be аble to comply with the requirements of Steele. At most, he would be аble to demonstrate that he relied on a non-lawyеr organization to find him a lawyer who would file the motion. Because Steele requires the retention of a lawyer, and it is сlear from appellant‘s pleadings that he had not retained one, we must affirm.
GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.