JOSEPH SAL MANCINO, 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 the trial court abused its discretion by denying a postconviction motion without substantive review, especially when the motion's form was sufficient.
Joseph Sal Mancino filed a forty-two page motion for postconviction relief. The trial court denied the motion with prejudice. This court previously re…
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
We reverse the order of the trial court that denied, with prejudice, Joseph Sal Mancino’s motion for postconviction relief. Through a previous appeal, the case was remanded for consideration of the substance of the forty-two page motion. See Mancino v. State, 986 So.2d 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). We had been directed to Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761 (Fla.2007), but found its application premature. In Spera, the Florida Supreme Court determined that a trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to provide a postcon-viction movant at least one opportunity to amend a legally insufficient postconviction motion that fails to meet pleading requirements.
Our review of the record in the previous appeal did not reflect that there had been any substantive review of the motion’s allegations to determine sufficiency. Rather the motion was rejected because of its form. Having determined that the form was sufficient, the case was remanded for the trial court to review the motion’s allegations.
As the record before this court does not reflect that review of the motion occurred, any rejection of the motion based on Spera is again premature. See, e.g., Strobridge v. State, 1 So.3d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). We acknowledge that Spera does not give postconviction movants an opportunity to amend conclusory claims. See Oquendo v. State, 2 So.3d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). However, no specific defect has been identified with respect to any of Mancino’s four claims.
We reverse the trial court’s summary denial of this claim with prejudice, and remand the matter. On remand, the trial court shall consider the motion’s allegations and its four claims under the standard as set forth by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d) and Spera.
Reversed and remanded.
GROSS, C.J., POLEN and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hammond v. State, 34 So. 3d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…be afforded at least one opportunity to amend a legally insufficient postconviction motion that fails to meet pleading requirements. 971 So. 2d at 761. As we have noted, however, Spera does not require remand of conclusory claims. Mancino v. State, 10 So. 3d 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). [*61] Further, Spera holds that an opportunity to amend is required “only if [the claim] can be amended in good faith.” 971 So. 2d at 762; See also Montero v. State, 996 So. 2d 888, 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (affirming denial of i…
-
Prince v. State, 40 So. 3d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…by competent substantial evidence. The court's legal conclusions are eminently correct. . We continue to conflict with Walton which holds that Spera requires an opportunity to amend conclusory claims. We have held to the contrary. Mancino v. State, 10 So. 3d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) ("We acknowledge that Spera does not give postcon-viction movants an opportunity to amend con-clusory claims.”). As discussed in Oquendo v. State, 2 So. 3d 1001, 1004 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), postconviction movants have the bur…
-
A.T.J.F. v. State, 78 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…tered stay of sentence. However, the record contains only disposition orders, so we remand to the trial court for entry of a written order of revocation of probation specifying the conditions appellant was found to have violated. See Brown v. State, 10 So. 3d 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Nagy v. State, 993 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Riley v. State, 884 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Affirmed, but remanded. TAYLOR, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 139…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- Oquendo v. State, 2 So. 3d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Strobridge v. State, 1 So. 3d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- J.S. v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 986 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Mancino v. State, 986 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)