GLEN JEFFERY BENNETT, 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 trial court erred by summarily denying Bennett's second motion to supplement his postconviction relief motion before ruling on the original motion.
Bennett filed a motion to supplement his postconviction relief motion before the trial court ruled on the original motion and before the statutory dea…
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
FULMER, Judge.
Glenn Jeffery Bennett appeals the summary denials of his motion to clarify and rehear defendant’s previously denied motion for jail time credit, his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and his motion to supplement. Bennett also appeals the denial of his motion for rehearing and his second motion to supplement his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We affirm without comment the trial court’s orders as to all but the summary denial of Bennett’s second motion to supplement his rule 3.850 motion.
Bennett admitted to violating his probation and was sentenced on March 13, 2003. He then filed a timely rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. On June 24, 2004, the clerk of the circuit court received Bennett’s second motion to supplement his rule 3.850 motion. The order denying Bennett’s original rule 3.850 motion was rendered on July 1, 2004. On August 25, 2005, the trial court issued an order denying the claims raised in Bennett’s second motion to supplement-as successive to his originally filed rule 3.850 motion.
It was error for the trial court not to consider Bennett’s additional claims because he filed his second motion to supplement prior to the end of the two-year time limit for filing a rule 3.850 motion and prior to the trial court’s order on his original rule 3.850 motion. See Pritchett v. State, 884 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court denying Bennett’s second motion to supplement and remand for the trial court to determine if the motion is otherwise facially sufficient and, if so, consider the claims raised on their merits.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded.
CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pelmon Arnold v. State, 884 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Drake Pritchett v. State, 884 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)