RICHARD ANTHONY BRADEN, 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 held that a minor deviation in the notary's placement on the oath page does not render a postconviction relief motion procedurally insufficient.
Richard Braden appealed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. The trial court found the motion procedurally insufficient due to the nota…
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 Strict Compliance With Procedural Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
[*366] PER CURIAM.
Richard Anthony Braden appeals the denial without prejudice of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court found that the notarized oath contained in Braden’s rule 3.850 motion was not in strict compliance with the form oath contained in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987. The trial court accordingly found Braden’s motion to be proeedurally insufficient and denied it without prejudice to file an amended motion which had a proper oath. We reverse.
The oath contained in Braden’s rule 3.850 motion is virtually identical to the form oath contained in rule 3.987. It complies with the requirements of rule 3.987. The fact that the notary public signed the oath on the page prior to where the form stated “Notary Public” does not render the oath invalid. To conclude otherwise would unnecessarily elevate form over substance.
Braden’s motion should not have been denied as being proeedurally insufficient due to its oath. We accordingly reverse and remand this case to the trial court for further consideration of Braden’s motion. In so doing, we make no determination on the merits of the claims raised in-Braden’s motion or on the timeliness of the motion.
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and STRINGER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Campbell v. State, 115 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…s, [sic] oath pursuant to 92.525 FSA done this 13 day of May 2012.” Because the oath Campbell signed is virtually identical to the form oath, the posteonviction court erred in dismissing his motion based on an insufficient oath. See Braden v. State, 779 So. 2d 365, 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that oath that was virtually identical to the rule 3.987 form oath rendered postconviction motion procedurally sufficient). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the postconviction court consider…