SLOAN M. WORLO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Opportunity To Amend cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sloan M. Worlo, appearing pro se, appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. All claims were correctly denied as facially insufficient. However, the Florida Supreme Court has recently ruled that a defendant who files 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 (Fla.2007), reh’g denied, No. SC06-1304 (Fla. Dec. 26, 2007). Although the trial court denied Worlo’s motion prior to the issuance of Spera, this case was in the appellate “pipeline” when Spera was decided. Therefore, Spera applies. See Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063, 1065-66 (Fla.1992). Worlo should be given a “reasonable period” to amend. Spera, 971 So. 2d at 761. Accordingly, we reverse the court’s denial of Wor-lo’s motion and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PALMER, C.J., PLEUS and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pierre v. State, 982 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…iency of counsel. This is a fatal pleading flaw. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). Since this appeal was in the pipeline when Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla.2007) was decided, it applies here. Worlo v. State, 976 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). This means that the trial court should have denied relief without prejudice to Pierre’s right to re-apply for relief on this latter claim. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on this portion of claim one.…
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Rhoda Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1992)