Starkes v. State (231 So. 3d 596, 2017)

PER CURIAM.

Christan Starkes appeals the denial of his original and supplemental rule 3.850 motions. The motions, filed in April and May 2016; challenged convictions entered on May 3, 2012, The trial court concluded the rule 3.850 motions were filed more than two years after the convictions became final, meaning they were untimely. See. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b) (establishing two-year deadline). But because Starkes appealed the two convictions (see Case No. 1D13-4795), the clock did not start running until this court affirmed and the mandate issued in March 2015. See Knowles v. State, 41 So.3d 332, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Thus, Starkes’s rule 3.850 motions were timely filed in 2016. We therefore reverse and remand so that the trial court can address the motions on their merits.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and OSTERHAUS and WINSOR,' JJ., CONCUR.

Starkes. appealed after’ the court denied his motion to withdraw plea. Cf. Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2) (authorizing certain direct appeal's from' guilty pleas). The State argues'that ., Starkes’s motion to withdraw plea was not timely filed, but the State cites to "the wrong motion. Starkes filed a timely motion to withdraw plea in June 201?, which was' the subject of his earlier appeal, His later, untimely motion, is not at,issue.