JULIUS T. GROVES, 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 denial of a post-conviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 because the motion was facially insufficient, without prejudice to filing a revised motion that complies with the rule's content requirements.
A post-conviction relief motion that fails to comply with the content requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(c) is facially insufficient and may be summarily denied without reaching the merits.
[1] A post-conviction relief motion that fails to comply with the content requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(c) is facially insufficient and may be summ…
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 intelligenceGroves appealed an order denying his motion for post-conviction relief, which was treated as a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.…
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 Facially Insufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying the appellant’s motion, which was treated as a motion for post-conviction relief. Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.850. We need not reach the merits of the appellant’s motion, as said motion is facially insufficient. We affirm, without prejudice to the appellant’s right to file below a revised motion that sufficiently complies with the contents requirements set forth in subsection (c) of the rule. Deese v. State, 530 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA) (failure to comply with Rule 3.850 requirements rendered motion facially insufficient), rev. dism., 534 So. 2d 398 (Fla.1988); Burns v. State, 651 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (although trial court’s stated reason for denial of Rule 3.850 was erroneous, summary denial was affirmed, without prejudice for the appellant to file an amended motion below complying with the contents requirements of the rule); Mitchell v. State, 638 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Scott v. State, 364 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
In the event the lower tribunal elects to deny any revised motion including substantially similar allegations of “affirmative misrepresentations” by trial counsel, the trial court should attach portions of the record that conclusively show that the appellant is entitled to no relief. Hayes v. State, 665 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Griffin v. State, 644 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Jones v. State, 636 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Carmichael v. State, 631 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Corbitt v. State, 584 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doyle Williams v. State, 700 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…of Criminal Procedure 3.850, was denied as facially insufficient. His motion did not comply with subsection (c) of the rule because it was not sworn and failed to indicate whether he had filed a direct appeal or previous motion. See Groves v. State, 668 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We therefore affirm, but do so without prejudice for him to refile a timely motion which complies with Rule 3.850. MINER, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.…
-
Toler v. State, 818 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…s motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 without prejudice to refile a motion which conforms with the rule is affirmed. See Pavey v. State, 720 So. 2d 563, 563 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Groves v. State, 668 So. 2d 1089, 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); and Adlington v. State, 599 So. 2d 1047, 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). BARFIELD, MINER and POLSTON, JJ., concur.…
-
Dublin v. State, 681 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…the requirements of that rule (ie., it was not filed under oath), we affirm the denial of that motion without prejudice to Dublin to file an amended motion pursuant to rule 3.850, which conforms to the requirements of that rule. See Groves v. State, 668 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Burns v. State, 651 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). See also McClain v. State, 673 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Caldwell v. State, 659 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Gentry. AFFIRMED; REMANDED without prejudice to defendan…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carmichael v. State, 631 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Corbitt v. State, 584 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Scott v. State, 364 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Burns v. State, 651 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Deese v. State, 530 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Mitchell v. State, 638 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Alsonso Duhart v. State, 644 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Selig v. State, 636 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Jones v. State, 636 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Nesbie Mims Jr. v. State, 665 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)