two, and three as untimely under rule 3.850. The court treated claim four, concerning habitual violent felony offender sentencing, under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and granted it in part and denied it in part. It appears that the State was unaware of the -versions of the postconviction motions filed in December 2007 and that the court, in denying three of the claims as untimely, had forgotten about the existence of these motions and its own orders allowing George sixty days to refile them under oath. The direct-appeal mandates in cases CF03-000053-XX and CF05-003286-XX issued on December 14, 2006, and November 13, 2006, respectively. As such, the motions as filed in December 2007 were timely. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b); Beaty v. State, 701 So.2d 856, 857 (Fla.1997) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the properly sworn versions of
holding that limitation period begins to run at the time of the breach holding the sixyear limitations period begins to run upon date that payment is made holding that the oneyear period begins to run after the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari has expired holding that the oneyear period begins to run when the mandate of the court of appeals issues holding that the twoyear period for filing a motion for postconviction relief begins to run upon issuance of the directappeal mandate