CLIFFORD J. GREEN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 court affirmed the summary denial of Green's post-conviction Rule 3.850 motion, finding the four original claims lacked merit and allowing resubmission of five additional claims if accompanied by proper oath and notarization.
A post-conviction Rule 3.850 motion lacking proper oath and notarization for supplemental claims may be summarily denied without prejudice, allowing resubmission with proper formalities.
[1] A post-conviction Rule 3.850 motion must be accompanied by proper oath and notary seal; supplemental claims lacking proper oath may be summarily denied without prejudice,…
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 intelligenceClifford J. Green filed a post-conviction motion on October 11, 1993, with proper oath and notary seal, raising four claims. He then attached a notari…
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 Procedural Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Clifford J. Green timely appeals the summary denial of his post-conviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. This motion was signed by Green on 11 October 1993 and contained the appropriate oath and notary seal. See Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.987. We affirm the denial, with prejudice, of the four claims raised in his motion. The ruling of the trial court is supported by the two transcripts attached to his ruling. The record shows conclusively that Green is entitled to no relief. Anderson v. State, 627 So. 2d 1170,1171 (Fla.1993); Meeks v. State, 382 So. 2d 673, 676 (Fla.1980); Gunn v. State, 378 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
At the time he filed his motion, Green attached a notarized memorandum and raised five additional claims not raised previously in his motion. The memorandum is dated 12 October 1993. Although his memorandum was notarized, he did not include a proper oath swearing to the truth of the new allegations contained in his memorandum. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.987. We affirm the trial court’s summary denial without prejudice, of the five additional points raised in his memorandum. Green is allowed to resubmit a motion with a proper oath and notary seal directed to the new allegations only. Scott v. State, 464 So. 2d 1171 (Fla.1985); Van Tassell v. State, 601 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
AFFIRMED.
GOSHORN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Meeks v. State, 382 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1980)
- Anderson v. State, 627 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 1993)
- Scott v. State, 464 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 1985)
- Gunn v. State, 378 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- van Tassell v. State, 601 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Rimmer v. State, 601 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)