SANDRA GRAHAM, 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.
Sandra Graham appeals the trial court's dismissal of her postconviction motion for jail time credit filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The appellate court reverses, holding that Graham's timely-filed motion was incorrectly dismissed as successive and remands for the trial court to consider the motion on its merits.
A timely-filed Rule 3.850 motion cannot be dismissed as successive and may be amended with sworn allegations relevant to the issues raised in the motion, even after the two-year time period for filing has expired, provided the trial court has not yet ruled on the motion.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 may be amended with sworn allegations relevant to the issues raised, even af…
[2] A trial court incorrectly dismisses a motion for postconviction relief as successive when the movant has previously been granted leave to file such a motion without preju…
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 timely-filed rule 3.850 motion, prior to the trial court's disposition of the motion, may be amended with sworn allegations relevant to the issue or issues raised in the motion, even after the two-year time period for filing a timely rule 3.850 motion has expired.”
Establishes the court's holding that timely-filed motions may be amended with additional sworn allegations beyond the two-year filing deadline
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGraham previously filed a Rule 3.800(a) motion for jail credit, which was denied. The appellate court then allowed her to file a timely Rule 3.850 mot…
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 Amendment Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sandra Graham appeals the dismissal of her motion for postconviction relief seek ing jail time credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Previously, in Graham v. State, 825 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), this court affirmed the denial of Graham’s rule 3.800(a) motion seeking jail credit “without prejudice to any right Graham may have to file a timely motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 if she wishes to challenge the factual accuracy of the trial court’s records concerning the dates she was in jail.” Id. Graham did file a timely rule 3.850 motion, but the trial court incorrectly dismissed Graham’s motion as successive. We reverse and remand for the trial court to consider Graham’s motion on its merits.
We note that, as filed, Graham’s rule 3.850 motion does not contain detailed allegations challenging the factual accuracy of the records concerning the dates she was in jail. However, her sworn brief filed with this court does. A timely-filed rule 3.850 motion, prior to the trial court’s disposition of the motion, may be amended with sworn allegations relevant to the issue or issues raised in the motion, even after the two-year time period for filing a timely rule 3.850 motion has 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hempstead v. State, 980 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…ment as motions for rehearing and in determining that they were successive and untimely. The State contends that amendments made to a motion after a ruling on the merits are considered improper, successive motions, and we agree. In Graham v. State, 846 So. 2d 617, 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), this court stated, “A timely-fíled rule 3.850 motion, prior to the trial court’s disposition of the motion, may be amended with sworn allegations relevant to the issue or issues raised in the motion, even after the two-year…
-
Bulley v. State, 857 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…on relief); Brown v. State, 596 So. 2d 1026, 1027 (Fla.1992) (holding that the two-year limitation for filing a motion to vacate does not preclude the enlargement of issues raised in a timely filed motion for postconviction relief); Graham v. State, 846 So. 2d 617, 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that a timely filed rule 3.850 motion, prior to its disposition, may be amended even after the two-year period for a timely filed initial motion has run). Furthermore, although Bulley alleges that his prison does no…
-
Reashod Rosier v. State, 144 So. 3d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…dered timely filed because the posteonviction court had not yet disposed of the September 30, 2008, amendment. See Williams v. State, 99 So. 3d 593, 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Bulley v. State, 857 So. 2d 237, 239-40 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Graham v. State, 846 So. 2d 617, 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“A timely-filed rule 3.850 motion, prior to the trial court’s disposition of the motion, may be amended with sworn allegations relevant to the issue or issues raised in the motion, even after the two-year time period for fil…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rogers v. State, 782 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2001)
- Norris v. State, 832 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Graham v. State, 825 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)