PEGGY GILMORE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Legal Sufficiency Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On June 25, 2007, the appellant filed the instant rule 3.850 motion asserting her trial counsel “fail[ed] to represent [her] properly.” The appellant has provided no facts or arguments other than that she believes there was a lack of evidence against her and she would now like to withdraw her plea or have her sentenced reduced. The trial court, which did not have the benefit of Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla.2007), denied the order because it is legally insufficient. The order on appeal is hereby reversed and remanded for the trial court to strike the appellant’s motion with leave to amend it to cure the deficiencies within a reasonable time period. See Nelson v. State, 977 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (discussing Spera).
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
WEBSTER, LEWIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Markey Cruse v. State, 14 So. 3d 1268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…issued. In Spera, the Florida Supreme Court held that when a trial court summarily denies a defendant’s rule 3.850 motion as facially insufficient, it must also give the defendant an opportunity to amend his motion. Id. at 762. In Gilmore v. State, 989 So. 2d 714, 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), the trial court denied the appellant’s motion as facially insufficient without giving him an opportunity to amend his motion as Spera had yet to be issued. On appeal, this Court held that the appellant was entitled to amend…
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Nelson v. State, 977 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)