JAMES T. GRISSOM, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Successive Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
[*850] PER CURIAM.
James Grissom challenges the trial court’s denial of his posteonviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court found the motion successive, and did not resolve it on the merits. For the reasons which follow, we reverse. Grissom filed his first posteonviction motion on August 11, 1994, attacking a conviction which had become final on July 29, 1994. On October 21, 1994, the court summarily denied all of his claims but one, for which an evidentiary hearing was scheduled. On July 21, 1995, an addendum to his motion was filed, raising an additional complaint about his trial counsel’s performance. The trial court treated the addendum as a separate and distinct rule 3.850 motion, and denied it as successive. The trial court, however, had not at that time entered a final order disposing of all the issues raised in the original August 11, 1994, motion. The addendum filed by Grissom, less than two years after his conviction had become final, was not untimely. Thus, the issue raised in the addendum should have been considered on its merits. See Shaw v. State, 654 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
The record does not disclose whether a final order has yet been rendered on the original motion. If it has not, the issue raised in the addendum can be dealt with in that order when it is issued. If that order has in fact been rendered, the court may treat the amendment as a distinct, but not successive, posteonviction motion, and pass upon the merits of the claim.
Reversed and remanded.
FRANK, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCONN v. State, 708 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…n 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 DCA 1987), that a trial court has the authority to deny a motion to amend. However, in Grissom v. State, 679 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), we held a trial court should consider the merits of an addendum to a rule 3.850 postconvietion motion which raises an additional claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel where the addendum was filed less than two years after the…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. State, 654 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)