DOMONIQUE SMITH,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court reversed a trial court's summary denial of a postconviction relief motion. The trial court erred by not allowing the defendant an opportunity to amend the motion, as required by rule.
Yes, the trial court erred. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(f)(2) requires the trial court to allow a defendant at least 60 days to amend a facially insufficient postconviction motion.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by summarily denying a postconviction relief motion as legally insufficient without first allowing the defendant an opportunity to ame…
[2] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(f)(2) requires a trial court to enter a nonfinal, nonappealable order allowing a defendant sixty days to amend a postconviction m…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“where the trial court denies a timely rule 3.850 motion as “insufficient on its face, the court shall enter a nonfinal, nonappealable order allowing the defendant 60 days to amend the motion."”
Establishes the procedural requirement for handling facially insufficient postconviction motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDomonique Smith filed a motion for postconviction relief. The trial court summarily denied the motion as legally insufficient without seeking a respon…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Opportunity To Amend cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Domonique Smith filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.1 Without directing or receiving a response from the State, the trial court entered a final order summarily denying the motion as legally insufficient. In doing so, the trial court erred. It is well-established that where the trial court denies a timely rule 3.850 motion as “insufficient on its face, the court shall enter a nonfinal, nonappealable order allowing the defendant 60 days to amend the motion." Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2); see also Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754, 761 (Fla. 2007) (holding that where “a defendant's initial rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief is determined to be legally insufficient for failure to meet either the rule's or other pleading requirements, the trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to allow the defendant at least one opportunity to amend the motion"); Brown v. State, 252 So. 3d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Charles v. State, 193 So. 3d 46, 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (holding: “To the extent that a postconviction claim is conclusory or otherwise facially insufficient, the trial court should not deny the claim on its merits, but instead should enter a nonfinal order that provides the defendant the opportunity to amend the motion to state a legally sufficient claim for relief”); Marckson v. State, 151 So. 3d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (reversing order summarily denying 3.850 motion as legally insufficient and remanding cause for trial court to permit defendant to file an amended motion within sixty days); Anderson v. State, 67 So. 3d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
Accordingly, we reverse the order on review and remand this cause for the trial court to permit Smith an opportunity to file a facially sufficient motion within sixty days, and for further proceedings thereafter as may be appropriate.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Enel Charles v. State, 193 So. 3d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Marckson v. State, 151 So. 3d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Anderson v. State, 67 So. 3d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Brown v. State, 252 So. 3d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)