WILBERT PIERRE, 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.
Wilbert Pierre appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial of his recusal motion and one claim but reversed and remanded the denial of five other claims, holding that the trial court erred by denying them as facially insufficient without giving Pierre an opportunity to amend.
The trial court properly denied the recusal motion and claim 6, but erred in denying claims 1-5 as facially insufficient without providing Pierre an opportunity to amend. The court must strike the motion with leave to amend within a reasonable period unless it is apparent the defects cannot be corrected.
[1] A motion to recuse based on prior adverse rulings is properly denied.
[2] A post-conviction motion should not be denied due to a pleading defect if the defect can be remedied by a good faith amendment.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 defendant who has filed a legally insufficient Rule 3.850 motion should be given at least one opportunity to correct the deficiency, unless it is apparent that the defect cannot be corrected”
Establishes the core holding from Spera v. State regarding post-conviction motion procedure
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePierre filed a Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief containing six claims. The trial court summarily denied the entire motion, including claim…
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 Adverse Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
Wilbert Pierre [“Pierre”] appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief and the denial of his motion to recuse.
Pierre’s motion to recuse, which was based on prior adverse rulings, was properly denied. See Thompson v. State, 759 So. 2d 650 (Fla.2000). The denial of Pierre’s claim 6 was also proper because this claim was conclusively refuted by the record attached to the trial court’s order.
We conclude, however, that the trial court erred in denying Pierre’s claims 1-5 as facially insufficient without allowing Pierre an opportunity to correct the pleading deficiencies in these claims. The Florida Supreme Court recently announced that a defendant who has filed a legally insufficient Rule 3.850 motion should be given at least one opportunity to correct the deficiency, unless it is apparent that the defect cannot be corrected. See Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 WL (Fla. 2007), rehearing denied, No. SC06-1304 (Fla. Dec. 26, 2007).
Although the trial court denied Pierre’s motion prior to the issuance of Spera, this case was in the appellate “pipeline” at the time of Spera’s issuance and, therefore, Spera applies. See Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063, 1066 (Fla. 1992). The court in Spera held that a post-conviction motion should not be denied because of a pleading defect if that pleading defect could be remedied by a good faith amendment to the motion. The court further held that the proper procedure when a motion is legally insufficient is for the trial court to strike the motion with leave to amend within a reasonable period. Id.; see also Bryant v. State, 901 So. 2d 810 (Fla.2005); Keevis v. State, 908 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
In this case, it is not apparent that the defects in the motion could not be remedied, depending on the facts.
Accordingly, we are bound to reverse and remand for the trial court to strike the motion with leave to amend within a specified time consistent with the parameters identified in Spera.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
PALMER, C.J. and EVANDER, J., concur. . We are aware that in Hagins v. State, 969 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007), this court affirmed a dismissal without prejudice. In that case, however, the trial court had already specified that dismissal was without prejudice. In the usual case, reversal and remand will be required.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Forrest v. State, 988 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…other convictions that subject him to deportation. STONE, POLEN and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur. . Spera was decided after the trial court decided this motion, but because this case was in the “appellate pipeline,'' Spera applies. See Pierre v. State, 973 So. 2d 547, 547 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).…
-
Hempstead v. State, 980 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…ze that the postconviction court did not have the benefit of Spera when it entered its orders on Hempstead’s claims. However, because Hempstead’s case was in “the appellate ‘pipeline’ ” when Spera was issued, Spera applies here. See Pierre v. State, 973 So. 2d 547, 547 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). Under the unusual circumstances here, where Hempstead has chosen to file multiple, lengthy supplements on many claims, we reverse the following claims that were .denied or dismissed as facially insufficient and remand for t…
-
Parsons v. State, 981 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…concur. . See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 . Although the trial court denied the defendant's motion prior to the issuance of Spera, this case was in the appellate pipeline at the time of Spera’s issuance and, therefore, Spera applies. See Pierre v. State, 973 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Thompson v. State, 759 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2000)
- Rhoda Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1992)
- Bryant v. State, 901 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 2005)
- Keevis v. State, 908 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Hagins v. State, 969 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Sodoc Esser v. State, 969 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)