NEVILLE EDWARDS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
NEVILLE EDWARDS, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
963 So. 2d 296
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2007)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Neville Edwards appeals an order denying an amended rule 3.850 motion as successive. On appeal, the state agrees that because the amended motion was filed within the two-year time limit and before the court ruled on the original motion and first supplemental motion, the new claims raised in the amended motion should not have been denied as successive. See Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla.1999), receded from on other grounds, Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla.2004). The first 18 claims were already considered on the merits. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to rule on grounds (19) and (20) of appellant’s amended rule 8.850 motion.
GUNTHER, POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 993 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…er. The claim appears legally sufficient and is not refuted by any of the attached records. Cottle v. State, 733 So. 2d 963 (Fla.1999). The trial court erred in failing to consider and rule on this timely-filed supplemental motion. Edwards v. State, 963 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Shaw v. State, 654 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We reverse and remand for consideration of this claim only. On April 25, 2008, after the two-year time limit had run and after the trial court had denied the originally-filed…
Authorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2004)
- Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1999)