JERRY ROWE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantial Compliance With Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Rowe appeals from the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. We affirm, without prejudice to the filing of a properly drafted motion, properly sworn.
Rowe’s motion, alleging various grounds for relief, was stricken by the trial court because it was not under oath nor substantially in compliance with the criminal rules. A review of the motion reveals that it is not under oath, and that Rowe failed as well to mention previous appeals and their dispositions, as required by Rule 3.850(b), 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 JOANOS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 561 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…nder oath as required by Rule 3.850 and also fails to include the information required by Rule 3.850(b), (c) and (d). [*1350] We therefore affirm, but without prejudice to the filing of a sworn motion in conformance with the Rule. See Rowe v. State, 474 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Williams v. State, 539 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (“Williams I”). Consistent with our earlier opinion, the appellant filed another motion which sought to cure the technical deficiencies found to exist in Williams I. The tria…
-
Williams v. State, 539 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…under oath as required by Rule 3.850 and also fails to include the information required by Rule 3.850(b), (c) and (d). We therefore affirm, but without prejudice to the filing of a sworn motion in conformance with the [*10] Rule. See Rowe v. State, 474 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). AFFIRMED. SMITH, C.J., and ERVIN, J., concur.…
-
Deese v. State, 530 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…tions are true and correct. See Scott v. State, 464 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 1985) (motion not under oath as required by rule 3.850 was properly denied). Since the motion is facially insufficient, no relief could be granted under rule 3.850. Rowe v. State, 474 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); see also Little v. State, 512 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). We cannot determine whether the motion is sufficient to state grounds for relief under rule 3.800. Some of the grounds alleged to have been cited by the trial court…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Scott v. State, 464 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 1985)
- McELROY v. State, 436 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Jarvis v. Jarvis, 448 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Baker v. State, 448 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)