LEWIS BRISCOE, 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 court held that a postconviction court must allow a defendant an opportunity to correct pleading deficiencies unless the deficiency cannot be corrected.
Lewis Briscoe appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel but failed to alleg…
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 Strickland Prejudice Prong cases and more on FLexlaw
[*257] WALLACE, Judge.
Lewis Briscoe appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without comment the denial of Mr. Bris-coe’s claim of trial court error. We reverse the denial of Mr. Briscoe’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and remand for further proceedings.
Mr. Briscoe raised two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel but failed to allege any prejudice resulting from his trial counsel’s conduct. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The postcon-viction court found the claims to be legally insufficient and denied the claims.
However, the postconviction court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court of Florida’s recent decision in Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla.2007). In Spera, the court held that “in dismissing a first postconviction motion based on a pleading deficiency, a court abuses its discretion in failing to allow the defendant at least one opportunity to correct the deficiency unless it cannot be corrected.” Id. at 755. There is nothing in the limited record before this court to demonstrate that Mr. Briscoe could not sufficiently allege prejudice in connection with his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel if given the opportunity to amend his motion.
Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court’s summary denial of Mr. Bris-coe’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. On remand, the postconviction court shall strike those claims with leave to amend within a specific period of time in accordance with Spera.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
FULMER and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nelson v. State, 996 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…ry denial of grounds one and two and remand for the postconviction court to strike those grounds with leave to amend to file a facially sufficient motion within a reasonable time. See Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754, 761 (Fla.2007); Briscoe v. State, 978 So. 2d 256, 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). [*953] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. NORTHCUTT, C.J., and KELLY, J., Concur. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694(1966). . Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct.…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)