JIMMY ESPINO
v.
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.
A postconviction court errs by denying a 3.850 motion without providing the defendant an opportunity to amend a ground asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a suppression motion.
[1] A postconviction court must provide a defendant an opportunity to amend a 3.850 motion ground asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file a motion to…
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 intelligenceJimmy Espino appealed the postconviction court's denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. The court su…
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 Cumulative Error Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
JIMMY ESPINO,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-3361
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed July 2, 2020
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County, Greg A. Tynan, Judge.
Jimmy Espino, Miami, pro se.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent-Tripp, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Jimmy Espino appeals the postconviction court’s denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. The court summarily denied grounds one, two, four, and six of Espino’s motion and denied grounds three and five, as well as Espino’s cumulative error claim raised in ground seven, following an evidentiary hearing.
2
We affirm, without further discussion, the court’s denial of Espino’s motion, except as to ground four. We accept the State’s concession1 that the court erred in not providing Espino with an opportunity to amend this ground to assert that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress certain evidence. Accordingly, we reverse on ground four. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(3); Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754, 762 (Fla. 2007). Espino shall have sixty days following the issuance of our mandate to amend this claim, if he can do so in good faith. The postconviction court shall treat the amended motion as having been timely filed under rule 3.850(b)(2).
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED with directions.
LAMBERT, EDWARDS, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.