ARTHUR SMITH, 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 appellate court dismissed the appeal because it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to amend a postconviction relief motion.
Appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief and later a motion to amend it, which the trial court denied. The trial court did not rule on the m…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
[*172] PER CURIAM.
Arthur Smith (Smith) appeals what he contends is the trial court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We dismiss his appeal.
After Smith filed his motion for postconviction relief, he later filed a motion to amend that the trial court denied. Although the trial court attached a copy of Smith’s sentencing transcript to its order, there is no indication that its intent was to deny Smith’s original motion. Additionally, the record does not contain any order specifically determining the merits of the original motion.
We know of no authority that gives us jurisdiction to review an order denying a motion to amend a motion for postconviction relief. Moreover, even if such authority exists, we would conclude that the trial court did not err by denying the motion. See Ferro v. State, 510 So. 2d 339, 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (“[T]he courts have a right to expect that pleadings will not be filed [under rule 3.850], whether by lawyers or lay persons, until sufficiently and completely drafted.”)
However, upon the return of our mandate, the trial court shall comply with the requirements of rule 3.850(d) and render an order on Smith’s original motion. If Smith is aggrieved by the trial court’s order, he shall have thirty days within which to appeal to this court under rule 3.850(g).
Appeal dismissed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCONN v. State, 708 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…, in an order dated October 30, 1996, denied the motion to amend, and in an order dated December 2, 1996, denied the motion for posteonviction relief. [*309] The trial court’s order denying the motion to amend cites to our opinion in Smith v. State, 636 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). In Smith, we dismissed a defendant’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of a motion to amend, holding we did not have jurisdiction to review such an order. In dicta, we noted, relying on Ferro v. State, 510 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2d…
-
Coleman v. State, 778 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed because the order is not a final order or a nonfinal order appealable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 636 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1994). JOANOS, LAWRENCE and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.…
-
Chantin Riche v. State, 174 So. 3d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See Smith v. State, 636 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). ROBERTS, C. J., MARSTILLER and MAKAR, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Alfio Ferro v. State, 510 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)