SHELBY NORRIS, 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.
Shelby Norris appeals the summary denial of his third amended Rule 3.850 postconviction motion. The trial court rejected the motion as successive, but the appellate court reversed, finding that because the previous motion was still pending and the amendment was filed within the two-year time limit, the trial court should have addressed the merits.
A defendant may amend a Rule 3.850 motion if the trial court has not entered a dispositive order and the amendment is filed within the two-year time limit, even if amendments are filed after an evidentiary hearing or partial ruling. The trial court erred in denying Norris's third amended motion as successive.
[1] A postconviction motion may be amended if the trial court has not yet ruled on the motion and the amendment is filed within the two-year time limit.
[2] Amendments to a postconviction motion filed after an evidentiary hearing should be addressed if the trial court has not entered a dispositive order and the amendment is f…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A defendant may amend a rule 3.850 motion if the trial court has not yet ruled on the motion and the amendment is filed within the two-year time limit.”
States the governing legal standard for amending Rule 3.850 postconviction motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNorris was convicted of multiple crimes in 1998 and appealed, with his conviction affirmed on March 2, 2000. He originally filed a postconviction moti…
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 Successive Postconviction Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
COVINGTON, Judge.
Shelby Norris appeals the summary denial of his third amended postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied the third amended motion as successive because Norris had failed to show why he had not included his new allegations in the previous postconviction motion. Because the previous motion was still pending in the trial court and because the third amended motion was filed within the two-year time limit under rule 3.850, we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the third amended motion on its merits.
Norris was convicted of multiple crimes in 1998. His case was affirmed on appeal, and the mandate was issued on March 2, 2000. Norris v. State, 754 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (table). Norris originally filed a postconviction motion and an amended postconviction motion that the trial court dismissed without prejudice because the motions did not contain properly sworn oaths. Norris then filed a second amended motion that contained thirty-five allegations. On January 18, 2002, the trial court rendered an order denying thirty-two of the claims and ordering the State to respond to the remaining three claims. On January 28, 2002, Norris filed a third amended posteonviction motion which the trial court denied without addressing the merits of the claims.
A defendant may amend a rule 3.850 motion if the trial court has not yet ruled on the motion and the amendment is filed within the two-year time limit. Beard v. State, 827 So. 2d 1021, 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Even amendments filed after an evidentiary hearing should be addressed if the trial court has not entered a dispositive order and the amendment is filed within the two-year time limit. Lang v. State, 826 So. 2d 433, 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
Norris’ third amended posteonviction motion was filed within the two-year limit under rule 3.850 and was filed prior to the entry of a dispositive order by the trial court. Thus, the trial court should not have denied the motion as successive. We reverse and remand for the trial court to address the merits of Norris’ third amended posteonviction motion.
Reversed and remanded.
FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Graham v. State, 846 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…expired. See Rogers v. State, 782 So. 2d 373, 376 n. 7 (Fla.2001) (stating that “the two-year time limitation does not preclude the enlargement of issues raised in a timely-filed initial motion for postconviction relief’); see also Norris v. State, 832 So. 2d 969, 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (stating that “a defendant may amend a rule 3.850 motion if the trial court has not yet ruled on the motion”). Reversed and remanded. NORTHCUTT, CASANUEVA, and SALCINES, JJ., concur.…
-
Russell v. State, 46 So. 3d 151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
-
Loveland v. State, 396 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)…ouston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275 (1988))). The State has commendably and professionally conceded that the postconviction court erred when it declined to address the proposed amended motion. We agree with the State. See generally Norris v. State, 832 So. 2d 969, 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“A defendant may amend a rule 3.850 motion if the trial court has not yet ruled on the motion and the amendment is filed within the two-year time limit [of the rule].” (citation omitted)). Having directed the postconviction…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Beard v. State, 827 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Gooch Support Sys., Inc. v. Mahaleel Lee Luster, 826 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Lang v. State, 826 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)