GLENN SCHOFIELD, 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.
Glenn Schofield appealed the trial court's summary denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding the motion facially insufficient because it failed to comply with procedural requirements regarding disclosure of prior appeals and post-conviction motions, and because supplemental documents lacked proper oath requirements.
The trial court's summary denial was affirmed on two grounds: (1) the initial Rule 3.850 motion failed to meet requirements of Rule 3.850(c) by not stating whether there was a direct appeal or disclosing previous post-conviction motions, and (2) the three supplemental documents could not support grounds for relief because they lacked proper oath language as required by Rule 3.850.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief is facially insufficient and subject to summary denial if it fails to state whether there was an appeal from the judgment or sentence…
[2] A motion for post-conviction relief is facially insufficient and subject to summary denial if it fails to state whether a previous post-conviction motion has been filed a…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A failure to fulfill these requirements of rule 3.850 will result in a summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief due to facial insufficiency of the motion.”
Establishes the legal consequence of failing to comply with Rule 3.850(c)(2) and (3) requirements regarding disclosure of prior appeals and post-conviction motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSchofield filed a Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion presented in four different documents. The initial motion document did not state whether th…
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 Perjury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Glenn Schofield appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion. We affirm the denial without prejudice to Scho-field to resubmit his motion to the trial court.
Our affirmance is based upon two grounds. First, a review of Schofield’s rule 3.850 motion reveals that it is presented in four different documents. The first document, which is described as both a motion and a memorandum, contains the required oath and sets forth four separate grounds for relief. This document, however, does not properly set forth the initial information required by rule 3.850(c)(2) & (3).
Rule 3.850(c)(2) & (3) requires that a motion include “whether there was an appeal from the judgment or sentence and the disposition thereof’ and “whether a previous post-conviction motion has been filed, and if so, how many.” A failure to fulfill these requirements of rule 3.850 will result in a summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief due to facial insufficiency of the motion. Truesdale v. State, 627 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Raines v. State, 625 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Young v. State, 585 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). In the instant case, Schofield’s rule' 3.850 motion does not state whether there was a direct appeal from the judgment and sentence. Neither does Schofield’s motion specify whether any previous motions for post-conviction relief have been filed. Accordingly, Schofield’s initial rule 3.850 motion failed to meet the requirements of Rule 3.850(c), and the trial court’s order denying relief based upon this ground should be affirmed.
Second, Schofield filed three supplemental documents to his initial rule 3.850 motion. These documents contain eleven additional grounds for relief and they set forth both facts and law in support of each ground. Although each of these supplemental documents is signed and notarized, none of the documents contain a proper oath.
Rule 3.850 requires that a motion filed pursuant to it contain a brief statement of the facts and be under oath. “The principal reason that an oath is required is to discourage a movant from making false statements, by subjecting him to possible prosecution for perjury.” Lambert v. State, 631 So. 2d 361, 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Thus, where the allegations of fact are contained in a document that is not under oath, as is the case with Schofield’s three supplemental doc uments, the grounds alleged in the motion must be denied. Id.; Jones v. State, 637 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
AFFIRMED.
MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garnel D. Rackley v. State, 667 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…n-sworn memorandum of law. Jones v. State, 637 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s ruling. This disposition is without prejudice to appellant’s right to resubmit the motion with a proper oath. Schofield v. State, 641 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). ERVIN, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.…
-
Little v. State, 659 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…95 WL 437266], 20 Fla.L. Weekly D1716 (Fla. 1st DCA Jul. 26, 1995). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s ruling. This disposition is without prejudice to appellant’s right to re [*1380] submit the motion with a proper oath.1 Schofield v. State, 641 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). WOLF, WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur. . The trial court denied the order on other grounds; however, it failed to attach parts of the record refuting appellant's allegation that his attorney misinformed him about his…
-
Schofield v. State, 672 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…, based upon an earlier decision of this court which expressly provided that the court’s prior affirmance of the denial of post-conviction relief was “without prejudice to Schofield to resubmit his motion to the trial court.” See Schofield v. State, 641 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (Schofield, I). In Schofield I, this court explained that affirmance of the prior order denying post-conviction relief was based upon the following grounds: the motion failed to provide the information required by rule 3.850(c)…
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
- Lambert v. State, 631 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Young v. State, 585 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Jones v. State, 637 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Raines v. State, 625 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Phillips v. Payroll Transfers and Riscorp, 627 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)