THOMAS DRIES, 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.
Thomas Dries appealed the denial of his postconviction relief motion and motion for rehearing. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court abused its discretion by denying the rehearing motion without stating any basis, particularly where counsel had timely filed an artfully drafted motion seeking to supplement Dries' pro se submission.
The trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion for rehearing without stating a basis. While trial courts have discretion in granting or denying motions for rehearing, such discretion is not arbitrary, and the court failed to articulate any discernible reason for the denial despite the quality and timeliness of counsel's submission.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion when it denies a motion for rehearing without providing a reason for the denial.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion when it denies a motion for rehearing and the attendant opportunity to supplement a pro se motion.
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“'While the grant or denial of a motion for rehearing is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, it is never an arbitrary discretion.'”
Establishes the legal standard that while trial courts have discretion over rehearing motions, such discretion must be exercised on a principled, non-arbitrary basis
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDries filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, presenting claims that were either facially insu…
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 Motion For Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Dries appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Dries filed a timely motion for rehearing, which the trial court denied without providing a reason for its denial. We reverse and remand, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Dries’ motion for rehearing.
“ ‘While the grant or denial of a motion for rehearing is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, it is never an arbitrary discretion.’ ” Camena Invs. & Prop. Mgmt. Corp. v. Cross, 791 So. 2d 595, 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (quoting Sapphire Condo. Ass’n v. Amerivend Corp., 691 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)); see Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 46 (Fla.1966). In this case, Dries filed a motion for postconviction relief in which he presented claims that were either facially insufficient or only marginally sufficient. However, for the purpose of filing a motion for rehearing, Dries retained counsel. The motion for rehearing filed by counsel elaborated on the claims presented by Dries and sought permission to supplement Dries’ pro se motion in connection with the request for rehearing. Despite counsel’s timely and artfully drafted motion for rehearing, the trial court denied the motion. The trial court did not state a basis for denying the motion, and in reviewing the record we can discern none. We conclude that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny the motion for rehearing and the attendant opportunity to supplement Dries’ pro se motion. Accordingly, we reverse the orders denying Dries’ motion for postconviction relief and his motion for rehearing and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and SALCINES and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rivera v. State, 995 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 2008)…ormation on an issue initially raised in a first motion for postconviction relief, a court should allow such a supplement). Moreover, the grant or denial of a motion for rehearing is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Dries v. State, 899 So. 2d 489, 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); cf. Huff v. State, 762 So. 2d 476, 481 (Fla.2000) (stating that the standard of review for a trial court’s determination regarding a motion to amend a postconviction motion is whether there was an abuse of discretion). Neve…
-
Pressley v. State, 241 So. 3d 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…gly, we reverse the order denying Pressley's rule 3.850 motion and remand for the postconviction court to consider the merits of Pressley’s claim concerning the legality of his 2016 sentence, upon which we express no opinion. See Dries v. State, 899 So. 2d 489, 489-90 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (reversing order denying motion for postconviction relief where motion for rehearing clarified basis for movant’s claims). To the extent that the postconviction court determines that the pleadings are facially insuffic…
-
Mejia v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Camena Invs. & Prop. Mgmt. Corp. v. Cross, 791 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Sapphire Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Amerivend Corp., 691 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)