JAMES MORAIS, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed dismissal of postconviction relief motion for failure to comply with oath requirement, but permitted refiling without time-bar consequences.
A motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 must be properly sworn, and dismissal for lack of oath does not bar timely refiling.
[1] A postconviction relief motion and accompanying memorandum of law must be properly sworn under oath, and dismissal for noncompliance does not bar timely refiling within t…
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 intelligence“in order to protect against perjury and ensure compliance with the oath requirement attendant to a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence”
Court explaining the purpose of requiring sworn motions in postconviction relief proceedings
James Morais filed a motion for postconviction relief that was not properly sworn. The trial court dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding it …
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
PER CURIAM.
James Moráis appeals the dismissal of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court found that the motion was not properly sworn and thus could not be considered, and dismissed the motion without prejudice to Morais to refile a sworn motion. Such a dismissal is mandated by State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1993), in order to protect against perjury and ensure compliance with the oath requirement attendant to a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. Although not treated in the trial court’s order, we find that the memorandum of law submitted to the trial court together with the motion also was not properly submitted under oath. See Gorham v. State, 494 So. 2d 211 (Fla.1986).
We, accordingly, affirm the trial court’s order of dismissal, but do so without prejudice to the appellant’s refiling of the motion and memorandum of law with the proper oath. See, e.g., Miller v. State, 617 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Such refiling, if done merely to correct the technical defects noted herein, will not be subject to dismissal based upon expiration of the two-year time limitation. Miller v. State, 617 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Rivet v. State, 618 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and HALL and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1993)
- Gorham v. State, 494 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1986)
- Jones v. State, 617 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Rivet v. State, 618 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)