BROWN
v.
STATE
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.
When a Rule 3.850 motion alleges ineffective assistance of counsel in generalized terms without sufficient factual detail or showing of prejudice, the trial court must allow the defendant an opportunity to amend within 60 days rather than summarily denying the motion.
[1] When a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel contains only generalized allegations without sufficient factual detail or showing of p…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the trial court was bound pursuant to rule 3.850(f)(2) and Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007) to permit the movant an opportunity to amend within 60 days to state a legally sufficient claim”
Court's statement of the mandatory requirement when a 3.850 motion is facially insufficient
Brown filed a postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel through a series of gene…
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 Strickland Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal of a summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, we affirm the trial court’s finding that the defendant’s claims are either procedurally barred or otherwise not cognizable on a 3.850 motion, except for the defendant’s claim D.
The defendant’s claim D alleged in very general terms a series of actions by his counsel that the movant contends establishes ineffective assistance. The trial court correctly noted that these “generalized allegations” were legally insufficient to state a claim of ineffective assistance and that the defendant further failed to allege how counsel’s performance caused the requisite “prejudice.” Having found this claim insufficient on its face, however, the trial court was bound pursuant to rule 3.850(f)(2) and Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007) to permit the movant an opportunity to amend within 60 days to state a legally sufficient claim.
See, e.g., Charles v. State, 193 So. 3d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Williams v. State, 175 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); and Marckson v. State, 151 So. 3d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Domonique Smith v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Enel Charles v. State, 193 So. 3d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Marckson v. State, 151 So. 3d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Williams v. State, 175 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)