Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Fernando Lagunas, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee.
Based on the State's concession of error, we reverse the trial court's order dismissing Appellant's pro se motion to withdraw plea and remand to address the motion on the merits.
A motion to withdraw plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l) must be filed within 30 days after the rendition of a sentence. Here, however, Appellant's written judgment and sentence were rendered on a legal holiday: Independence Day, July 4, 2024. See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.514(a)(6)(A). The following day, Friday, July 5, 2024, was also designated an official court holiday by the chief judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit and the Volusia County Clerk of Circuit Court. See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.514(a)(6)(B). Therefore, Appellant's 30 days to file a motion to withdraw plea began on Monday, July 8, 2024. See Fla. R. Gen Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.514(a)(1)(A) (“When the period is stated in days ․ begin counting from the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday[.]”). Thus, as the State concedes, Appellant timely filed his pro se motion on August 6, 2024.1 The State also concedes Appellant's motion raises allegations of misadvice of counsel and therefore should not be stricken as a nullity. See Sheppard v. State, 17 So. 3d 275, 286–87 (Fla. 2004).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order dismissing Appellant's motion to withdraw plea, and remand to the trial court to address Appellant's motion on the merits.
Reversed and Remanded with instructions.
FOOTNOTES
1. Later that same day, Appellant filed a document that was properly treated as a Notice of Appeal. This filing did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to rule on the pending motion to withdraw plea nor is it a nullity. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h)(2)(C); Carroll v. State, 157 So. 3d 385, 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); Chipman v. State, 285 So. 3d 1005, 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).
Per Curiam.
Edwards, C.J., and Lambert and Kilbane, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Case No. 5D2024-2283
Decided: March 21, 2025
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)