Full Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D18-4441 _____________________________ TAVORIS SIMMONS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Marianne L. Aho, Judge. April 7, 2020 ROBERTS, J. On appeal, the appellant challenges the postconviction court’s ruling that his motion to accept his motion for postconviction relief was not timely filed. The postconviction court ruled that the appellant failed to show good cause as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.050. Because the appellant provided unrebutted proof that his motion for postconviction relief was timely filed, we find that the postconviction court erred. The appellant’s judgments and sentences became final on October 21, 2014. See Simmons v. State, 149 So. 3d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (Table). On May 21, 2018, the appellant filed a notice of inquiry requesting information on the status of his motion for postconviction relief. The Clerk of Court sent a letter to the appellant notifying him that there was no motion for postconviction relief filed. A few weeks later, the appellant filed a motion requesting the postconviction court to accept his motion for postconviction relief as timely filed; attached to his motion was a copy of his motion for postconviction relief. The copy of the motion for postconviction relief contained an institutional stamp with the date of November 19, 2015. The certificate of service contained the same date. And the appellant alleged that the mailroom at the institution where he was housed does not maintain an outgoing mail log. Upon receiving the appellant’s motion to accept his motion for postconviction relief as timely filed, the postconviction court ordered the State to respond. In the order, the postconviction court asked the State to provide any information it had with regards to the authenticity of the appellant’s claim that he had timely filed his motion for postconviction relief. The State responded that its file regarding the appellant’s case did not contain a copy of the motion and it had no further information about the appellant’s claim. With this information, the postconviction court found that the appellant failed to show good cause and denied his motion. This Court recently reaffirmed that a pro se inmate’s filing is presumed to be filed on the date the inmate lost control over the document by entrusting it to prison officials. Snodgrass v. State, 278 So. 3d 890, 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). This principle of law is known as the mailbox rule, which was first announced by the Florida Supreme Court in Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla. 1992). Snodgrass, 278 So. 3d at 892. When adopting the mailbox rule, the Florida Supreme Court did not require the pro se inmate’s filing be received by the Clerk of Court or any of the persons or entities listed in the certificate of service for the filing to be deemed timely filed. Haag, 591 So. 2d at 617. The appellant’s motion for postconviction relief contained an institutional stamp along with the date and officer’s initials. This evidence was sufficient to prove that the institution had a system in place for legal mail, that the institution recorded the date the legal mail was provided, and that the appellant used that system. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 33-210.102(8)(g). Because the appellant’s motion for postconviction relief contained evidence that the 2 appellant complied with the mailbox rule, the appellant was entitled to the presumption that his motion for postconviction relief was filed on November 19, 2015. Accordingly, the appellant’s motion for postconviction relief should have been presumed to have been timely filed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b); Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324, 326 (Fla. 2000); Linville v. State, 260 So. 3d 440, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018);Bulley v. State, 857 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Once the presumption arose, the burden shifted to the State to rebut the presumption. Thompson, 761 So. 2d at 326. Ordinarily, an evidentiary hearing is needed to resolve factual disputes over the timeliness of an inmate’s filing under the mailbox rule. Bray v. State, 702 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); McDonald v. State, 192 So. 3d 633, 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). But, here, the State did not dispute the authenticity of the appellant’s evidence. Thompson, 761 So. 2d at 326. Because the postconviction court had unrebutted evidence that the appellant timely filed his motion for postconviction relief, it erred by failing to accept the filing as timely filed. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED and REMANDED. ROWE and KELSEY, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ Tavoris Simmons, pro se, Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 3