KENNETH D. JEWSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Legal Sufficiency Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, an inmate of the state correctional system, seeks review of a final order denying his motion requesting post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied the motion as legally insufficient because it “fail[ed] to assert whether a previous post conviction motion has been filed, and if so, how many and if previous motions have been filed, the reason the claims in the present motion were not previously raised.” However, before the trial court entered its order denying relief, appellant had filed a properly sworn document (which we treat as an amendment to his initial motion) in which he asserted that he had filed no previous motions seeking postconviction relief. This document cured the deficiency which was of concern to the trial court, and the trial court should have addressed the merits of the motion. Accordingly, we reverse, and remand with directions that the trial court address the merits of appellant’s motion.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Patton v. State, 784 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2000)…lack of proper verification. Patton is correct that the proper remedy for failure to file a timely oath is dismissal without prejudice. See Groover v. State, 703 So. 2d 1035 (Fla.1997); Anderson v. State, 627 So. 2d 1170 (Fla.1993); Jewson v. State, 688 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). However, despite the wording used by the trial court, this claim does not warrant an evidentiary hearing because the court considered each claim on its merits. There was no dismissal on this basis. Public Records Patton argues…
-
Orange Cnty. Sch. Bd. & United Self Insured Servs. v. Best, 728 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…ning of the word “toll.” See Daniel v. Holmes Lumber Co., 490 So. 2d 1252, 1256 (Fla.1986) (“When the language of a statute is clear, courts may not look beyond the plain meaning of that language.”); Special Disability Trust Fund v. A-1 Block Corp., 688 So. 2d 968, 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (“Where the language is plain and unambiguous ... there is no occasion for judicial interpretation.”). Section 440.19(2) has no practical effect until after the two-year period provided for in section 440.19(1) expires. As…
-
McCOY v. State, 853 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 2003)…f Marcel with [*407] respect to her supposed telephone account abuses are wholly without merit. While it is true that “[a] defendant should be afforded wide latitude in demonstrating bias or possible motive on the part of a witness,” Henry v. State, 688 So. 2d 968, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), any questioning on the subject of this uncommonly extraneous issue would have been improper. Indeed, when analyzing a similar claim of improper restriction of cross-examination, this Court succinctly stated, “[Ejvidence of…