MARKEY CRUSE, 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.
A trial court must grant leave to amend a postconviction motion found facially insufficient, even if the motion was filed before the governing precedent was issued.
Markey Cruse appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. The trial court denied ground six of his ineffective assistance of c…
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 Facial Insufficiency Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
Markey Cruse appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of *1269Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court improperly dismissed ground six of the appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims as facially insufficient without giving him leave to amend as required by Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007). Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
The appellant filed his postconviction motion and motion for rehearing before Spera was 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 his postconviction motion in accordance with Spera even though Spera had not been issued when the lower court reviewed the motion. Id. This Court, therefore, reversed and remanded for the trial court to allow the appellant leave to amend his motion in accordance with Spera. Id.
Similarly, in the instant case, the appellant filed his postconviction motion and motion for rehearing before Spera was decided. The trial court summarily denied ground six of the appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims as facially insufficient. As such, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Spera.
REVERSED and REMANDED to the trial court pursuant to the requirements of Spera.
WOLF, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Gilmore v. State, 989 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)