SCOTT F. MCELROY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rules Of Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
This is an appeal from the trial court’s summary denial of McElroy’s Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.
The order appealed states that the motion does not meet the minimal requirements of Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We note that the motion is deficient in at least three respects: (1) it does not include specific information of the judgments) and sentence(s) under attack, as there appear to be two involved; (2) it does not indicate whether a previous post-conviction motion has been filed; and (3) it does not set forth sufficient facts but, rather, conclusions of law. Our affirmance, however, is without prejudice to McElroy’s refiling the motion in proper form. Robinson v. State, 423 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Cowick v. State, 419 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Irby v. State, 454 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…ient facts to support the claim for relief but, rather, only conclusions of law. The assertion of conclusions of law without specific allegations of fact in support is not adequate in making a claim for relief under Rule 3.850. See McElroy v. State, 436 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Moore v. State, 453 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (opinion filed July 13, 1984). These defects render the motion facially insufficient, see Evans v. State, 393 So. 2d 80, 81 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).' The proper method by whi…
-
Rowe v. State, 474 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…, and to state the ■ reason why the claims in the instant motion were not raised in a previous (October 1984) motion, as required by Rule 3.850(d). All of these omissions warrant the trial court’s action in striking the motion. See McElroy v. State, 436 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Baker v. State, 448 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Scott v. State, 464 So. 2d 1171 (Fla.1985). We therefore affirm without prejudice to the filing by Rowe of a motion which conforms to the criminal rules. BOOTH, C.J. and JOA…
-
Deese v. State, 530 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…e 3.850. The appealed order is affirmed in this respect without prejudice to appellant’s right to file an amended 3.850 motion which complies with the requirements of the rule. See Rowe v. State, 474 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); McElroy v. State, 436 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The motion appears to be facially sufficient under rule 3.800 to allege a basis for relief from an illegal sentence. To this extent the appealed order is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. AFFIRMED IN PART…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cowick v. State, 419 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Robinson v. State, 423 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)