RODNEY G. WILLIAMS, 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 Florida appellate court reversed an order striking Williams' post-conviction relief motion under Rule 3.850 because the motion was properly sworn on the approved form and the State's motion to strike lacked merit. The court held that even if the motion were unsworn, proper procedure would be dismissal without prejudice rather than striking.
The order striking Williams' motion was reversed because his petition was properly sworn on the court-approved form. Even if the motion were unsworn, the proper procedure would be dismissal without prejudice, not striking. The case was remanded for the trial court to enter appropriate orders to resolve the motion.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief filed on a form approved by the Florida Supreme Court, which includes an unnotarized oath, satisfies the oath requirement.
[2] A motion that is unsworn should be dismissed without prejudice, not stricken.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Mr. Williams filed his motion on a form document that appears to contain all of the requirements of the form approved by the Florida Supreme Court in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987. Mr. Williams clearly signed the unnotarized oath at the end of the document.”
Establishes that Williams' motion complied with all court-approved requirements including the required oath
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams filed a timely post-conviction relief motion on the Florida Supreme Court-approved form document, which included an unnotarized oath signed b…
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 Sworn Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.
Rodney G. Williams appeals an order “striking” his timely motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. When Mr. Williams filed his motion in circuit court, the State responded with a motion to strike Mr. Williams’ motion because it was not sworn. It appears that the State also prepared and submitted an order granting this motion to strike. The trial court entered the order prepared by the State. Mr. Williams appeals that order. The State’s motion to strike is odd because Mr. Williams filed his motion on a form document that appears to contain all of the requirements of the form approved by the Florida Supreme Court in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987. Mr. Williams clearly signed the unnotarized oath at the end of the document. This unnotarized oath was added to the standard form by the supreme court in 1993. See State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1993). Thus, the State’s motion was without merit. See Armey v. State, 880 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Patmore v. State, 735 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
To further complicate matters, it is well established that a motion that is actually unsworn should not be stricken, but should be dismissed without prejudice. See Morais v. State, 640 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Most trial courts dismiss such pleadings with leave to amend to include the oath within twenty or thirty days. This procedure renders the order nonfínal and nonappealable and saves considerable judicial resources.
The order on appeal merely grants a motion to strike. It does not contain the language required by rule 3.850(g) notifying the movant that he has thirty days to appeal. It is not entirely clear that the trial court intended this order to be a final order, but the order does not seem to permit further action in the trial court proceeding. Accordingly, we conclude that the simplest approach is to treat the order on appeal as a final order and reverse. On remand, the trial court shall enter whatever orders are appropriate to resolve this motion.
Reversed and remanded.
COVINGTON and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. State, 939 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…on facially insufficient and dismissed the motion without prejudice to refile a facially sufficient motion. Rowe v. State, 932 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Therefore, the trial court’s order is a non-appealable, nonfinal order. Williams v. State, 884 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). DISMISSED. ALLEN, WEBSTER, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.…
-
Quilling v. State, 968 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…ed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 without prejudice to refile a proper, concise motion. As such, the trial court’s order is a non-final, non-appealable order. Lee v. State, 939 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Williams v. State, 884 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). We reject Appellant’s argument that his motion for rehearing was timely filed because Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(g) does not authorize rehearing motions directed to non-final orders dismissing without prejudice rule…
-
Pillajo v. State, 60 So. 3d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…s appeal because we lack jurisdiction. Neither the dismissal of a motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850 with leave to refile nor the denial of a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) is appealable. See Williams v. State, 884 So. 2d 374, 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (explaining that dismissing a pleading with leave to amend “renders the order nonfinal and nonap-pealable”); Riggs v. State, 847 So. 2d 1037, 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (explaining that “an order denying a motion to mitigate se…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1993)
- Vandervlist v. State, 640 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Armey v. State, 880 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Royce M. Reed v. State, 880 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Palmore v. State, 735 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Payton v. State, 735 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)