JEFFREY ALLEN PARSONS, 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 claims summarily denied were properly refuted, but claims with curable defects should be allowed to be amended.
Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. Some claims were denied after a hearing, others summarily.…
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 Legally Insufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, C.J.
Jeffrey Parsons (defendant) appeals the trial court’s order which summarily denied six grounds set forth in his motion for post-conviction relief and denied a seventh ground after conducting an evidentiary hearing thereon.1 We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Our review of the record establishes that the trial court’s denial of claim 4, after an evidentiary hearing, was proper, based on the finding that the testimony of the defendant was less credible than the testi mony of defense counsel. Accordingly, we affirm that ruling.
The trial court’s rulings summarily denying claims 2, 5, and 7 are also affirmed because those claims were conclusively refuted by the excerpts of the record which were attached to the trial court’s order. However, the trial court’s rulings summarily denying claims 1, 3, and 6 are reversed pursuant to the ruling in Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla.2007).2 In Spera, our Supreme Court 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. It is not apparent in this case that the defects in claims 1, 3, and 6 cannot be remedied by amendment. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to strike the defendant’s motion with leave to amend these three claims in a specified time consistent with parameters identified in Spera.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ., 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).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boule v. State, 86 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…e Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla.2007). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to strike Boule’s motion with leave to amend his claim in a specified time consistent with the parameters identified in Spera., See Parsons v. State, 981 So. 2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). REVERSED and REMANDED with Instructions. GRIFFIN, EVANDER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.…
-
Optavis O. Oliver v. State, 10 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…). Accordingly, the pertinent part of the order is reversed and this case is remanded with instructions that the trial court strike claim two with leave to amend “in a specified time consistent with parameters identified in Spera.” Parsons v. State, 981 So. 2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). As to the remaining portion of the order denying the other five claims, we affirm without further comment. [*705] AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED. GRIFFIN and EVANDER, JJ., concur. . See Fla. R. Crim.…
-
Escobar-Guillen v. State, 53 So. 3d 393 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…DCA 2009). Accordingly, the order is reversed and this case remanded with instructions that the trial court strike the motion with leave to amend in a specified time consistent with the parameters identified in Spera. See Oliver; Parsons v. State, 981 So. 2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). REVERSED and REMANDED. PALMER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Pierre v. State, 973 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)