TRENTON HERRON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 dismissed the appeal because it lacked jurisdiction to review a nonfinal order and because the postconviction court failed to set a reasonable time for amendment.
The defendant filed a motion for post-conviction relief, and the postconviction court dismissed some claims as insufficient and allowed amendment at a…
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 Non-Final Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Trenton Herron filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 raising five claims with multiple subparts. The post-conviction court denied some claims and dismissed others as facially insufficient. Instead of setting a reasonable time limit of no more than thirty days for amending the facially insufficient claims as required by Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761 (Fla.2007), the postconviction court permitted amendment at any time within the two-year time limit of rule 3.850(b), which in Mr. Herron’s case does not expire until approximately March 9, 2011. At the same time, the postconviction court erroneously notified Mr. Herron that he could appeal this nonfinal order within thirty days, and Mr. Herron did so.
We do not have jurisdiction to review this nonfinal order. See Havens v. State, 27 So.3d 803, 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Christner v. State, 984 So.2d 561, 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). And because the postcon-viction court did not specify a reasonable time for Mr. Herron to amend the motion, we cannot relinquish jurisdiction for entry of a final order but must dismiss this appeal.
On remand, the postconviction court should first enter a revised order allowing *207amendment within a reasonable time as dictated by Spent. If Mr. Herron does not amend the motion within the specified time, the court should enter a final order disposing of all of Mr. Herron’s claims. If Mr. Herron does amend his motion, the court must consider the amendments in its final disposition. See Lawrence v. State, 987 So.2d 157, 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).
Dismissed and remanded.
WHATLEY and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Russell v. State, 46 So. 3d 151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…motion and the amendment is filed within the two-year time limit.”). But until a final order on the original postconviction motion is entered, we do not have jurisdiction to review interim orders and we must dismiss this appeal. See Herron v. State, 34 So. 3d 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). As set out in Herron, the postconviction court should enter a revised order allowing Russell to amend his original motion within thirty days, pursuant to Spera, 971 So. 2d at 761. If Russell fails to amend within that time, the…
-
Al Jones v. State, 88 So. 3d 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…mend a facially insufficient motion within the time directed by the postconviction court, the postconviction court shall enter a final order denying the motion on the merits. See Verity v. State, 56 So. 3d 77, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Herron v. State, 34 So. 3d 206, 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Thus, the post-conviction court appropriately denied Mr. Jones’s motion. However, in his initial brief on appeal, Mr. Jones claims that he delivered an amended motion into the hands of corrections officials on August 29, 2…
-
Brown v. State, 38 So. 3d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…ack of jurisdiction. The postconviction court should enter a revised order permitting Brown to amend his motion within a reasonable period of time not to exceed thirty days, pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla.2007). See Herron v. State, 34 So. 3d 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Moreland v. State, 32 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). If Brown does not amend the motion, the postconviction court should enter a final order disposing of Brown’s claims. If Brown does amend his motion, the post-conviction court m…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Mason v. State, 987 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- Brandin Christner v. State, 984 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Havens v. State, 27 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)