ERNEST L. SAMPSON, 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 the motion for postconviction relief, except for one issue which was affirmed without prejudice.
Sampson was convicted of felony fleeing to elude and alleged his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss a defective information.…
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 Defective Information cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Ernest L. Sampson appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Sampson alleged his trial counsel was ineffective and stated five bases upon which he should be granted relief. We affirm the trial court’s order as to all but one of the issues without comment. The remaining issue we affirm without prejudice to Sampson’s right to file a facially sufficient claim.
The record indicates that Sampson was convicted of felony fleeing to elude, in violation of section 316.1935(2), Florida Statutes (1997), and was sentenced to twelve years in prison. He alleges that the information in his case was defective because it failed to allege each essential element of the crime with which he was charged, and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss the defective information. If what Sampson alleges is true, this could constitute the first prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Groff v. State, 390 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (amended information was invalid because it failed to allege the essential elements of the offense).
Sampson alleged he was prejudiced because if his attorney had moved to dismiss the information, there is a reasonable probability the outcome of his trial would have been different. However, Sampson failed to allege any circumstances which would have prevented the State from simply refiling an amended information which was sufficient. Because Sampson failed to allege a facially sufficient claim, we affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice to Sampson’s right to file a facially sufficient motion for postconviction relief. See Flagg v. State, 733 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Affirmed.
FULMER, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)…t failed to “allege[ ] how he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to object or raise the asserted error”). When a defendant files a facially insufficient claim, the trial court has the discretion to permit an amendment. See, e.g., Sampson v. State, 793 So. 2d 149, 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that the defendant’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss a defective information was facially insufficient, but allowing the defendant to file a motion curing the insufficiency). The rul…
-
Percival C. Ferris v. State, 996 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…information is vague and fails to set forth the elements of his crime. His claim is facially insufficient in that he fails to allege any circumstances under which the state would have been unable to file an amended information. See Sampson v. State, 793 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object to a [*229] defective information was facially insufficient in light of appellant’s failure to allege any circumstances which would have prevented th…
-
Jackson v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…id it allege any good cause for failing to raise any new and different claims in his first 3.850 motion. Because the motion was facially insufficient and [appellant] failed to meet his burden, we affirm the trial court’s order.”); Sampson v. State, 793 So. 2d 149, 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“[Appellant] failed to allege any circumstances which would have prevented the State from simply refiling an amended information which was sufficient. Because [appellant] failed to allege a facially sufficient claim, we aff…
Authorities Cited
- Groff v. State, 390 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Iisaman Flagg v. State, 733 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)