MARK J. PURCELL, 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 reversed the denial of post-conviction relief on one ground because the second Rule 3.850 motion cured the facial insufficiency of the first motion by alleging that the defendant would not have entered the plea had counsel not misrepresented facts.
A second Rule 3.850 motion alleging the same ground as a first motion may proceed on the merits if it cures the facial insufficiency of the first motion by adding necessary allegations, even though successive motions on the same grounds are generally restricted.
[1] A second Rule 3.850 motion raising the same ground as a first motion is not barred by the restriction on successive motions when the first motion was summarily denied for…
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“[The] restriction against successive motions on the same grounds is applied only when the grounds raised were previously adjudicated on their merits, and not where the previous motion was summarily denied or dismissed for legal insufficiency.”
Court explaining the scope of the restriction on successive Rule 3.850 motions, citing McCrae v. State.
Appellant filed a second Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief raising two grounds, with ground one alleging counsel made a misstatement regard…
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 Legal Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The order under review denied relief on both grounds asserted in Appellant’s second rule 3.850 motion for post conviction relief, referring to the reasons expressed in the order denying Appellant’s first motion. We affirm the denial of relief on ground two of the motion without discussion. The denial of relief on ground one, however, is reversed and the cause is remanded for further consideration upon an evidentiary hearing or for attachment of those portions of the record that conclusively show Appellant is entitled to no relief. Appellant’s first rule 3.850 motion alleged the same ground for relief as ground one, and was denied as being facially insufficient because it failed to allege that Appellant would not have entered the plea and would have chosen to go to trial had his counsel not made the alleged misstatement to him. This deficiency was cured by including such an allegation in the second motion now before us, so the motion is legally sufficient to require reversal and remand for further consideration on the merits. See Thornburg v. State, 591 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Freeman v. State, 589 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Kendrick v. State, 556 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). “[The] restriction against successive motions on the same grounds is applied only when the grounds raised were previously adjudicated on their merits, and not where the previous motion was summarily denied or dismissed for legal insufficiency.” McCrae v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388, 1390 (Fla.1983).
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
ZEHMER, C.J., and MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barbaree v. State, 700 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…appellant’s earlier Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion was denied was not a determination “on the merits,” the trial court erred in denying the subsequent rule 3.850 motion as “successive.” See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850(f); Purcell v. State, 641 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Freeman v. State, 589 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Williams v. State, 561 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We accordingly reverse the order under review and remand this ease to the trial court for consideration of the appella…
-
Scott v. State, 658 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…iction against successive motions on the same grounds is applied only when the grounds raised were previously adjudicated on their merits, and not where the previous motion was summarily denied or dismissed for legal insufficiency. Purcell v. State, 641 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Freeman v. State, 589 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Ames v. State, 518 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Herein, the trial court did not attach anything to its order denying relief to demonstrate that an earlier motion was denie…
-
Taylor v. State, 700 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…nsufficient, we affirm the order by which the trial court denied the appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. We do so without prejudice to the appellant’s right to file a timely, facially sufficient motion. See Purcell v. State, 641 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Freeman v. State, 589 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Williams v. State, 561 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). MINER, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- McCRAE v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 1983)
- Freeman v. State, 589 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Thornburg v. State, 591 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Kendrick v. State, 556 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)