LASHUNDRA ANTOINETTE FAIR
v.
THE 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.
The appellate court affirmed the denial of some postconviction relief claims but reversed the denial of another, allowing the defendant an opportunity to amend her motion. The court found that a preprinted plea form alone was insufficient to conclusively deny one of the claims.
The appellate court held that the trial court properly denied Claims Two and Three. However, the court held that Claim One was facially insufficient and should not have been denied on the merits; instead, Fair should have been allowed to amend her motion to state a facially sufficient claim.
[1] A trial court must allow a defendant an opportunity to amend a timely-filed postconviction motion if the motion is facially insufficient.
[2] A preprinted plea form, standing alone, may be insufficient to conclusively refute a claim for postconviction relief.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“If the motion is insufficient on its face, and the motion is timely filed under this rule, the court shall enter a nonfinal, nonappealable order allowing the defendant 60 days to amend the motion.”
Establishes the rule for amending facially insufficient postconviction motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLashundra Antoinette Fair appealed the trial court's summary denial of her motion for postconviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of c…
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 Opportunity To Amend Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
EMAS, C.J.
Lashundra Antoinette Fair appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying her timely-filed motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
We affirm in part and reverse in part.
We hold that the trial court properly denied Claims Two and Three. As to Claim One, however, we hold that the claim as pleaded was facially insufficient, and the trial court should not have denied it on the merits but should instead have permitted Fair an opportunity to amend the motion to state a facially sufficient claim. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 175 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2) (providing: “If the motion is insufficient on its face, and the motion is timely filed under this rule, the court shall enter a nonfinal, nonappealable order allowing the defendant 60 days to amend the motion. If the amended motion is still insufficient or if the defendant fails to file an amended motion within the time allowed for such amendment, the court, in its discretion, may permit the defendant an additional opportunity to amend the motion or may enter a final, appealable order summarily denying the motion with prejudice.”)
Because Fair will be permitted an opportunity to amend Claim One, the trial court may ultimately address the merits of that claim. Should the trial court reach the merits, we offer this observation: the one-page preprinted plea form purporting to be signed by Fair and attached to the order of summary denial, would appear insufficient by itself to conclusively establish that Fair is entitled to no relief on a sufficiently pleaded claim. See Koenig v. State, 597 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1992); Cendejas v. State, 250 So. 3d 851, 854 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018); Joseph v. State, 782 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Garcon v. State, 23 So. 3d 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Townsend v. State, 927 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Hen Lin Lu v. State, 683 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).1
We affirm the trial court's order insofar as it denied Claims Two and Three.
We reverse the trial court's order as to Claim One only, and remand with directions to enter an order permitting Fair 60 days within which to file an amended motion to state a facially sufficient claim for relief, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Koenig v. State, 597 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1992)
- Townsend v. State, 927 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Williams v. State, 175 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Julien Garcon v. State, 23 So. 3d 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Cendejas v. State, 250 So. 3d 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)