JAMES JUNIOR BURKE, 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 while some claims were properly denied, others were insufficiently pled and should have been allowed an opportunity to amend rather than being denied with prejudice.
Appellant sought postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied some claims outright and others with prejud…
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 Leave To Amend cases and more on FLexlaw
James J. Burke appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial of Burke’s first and second claims without further discussion. As to Burke’s third claim, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the claim was insufficiently pled. However, as the State properly concedes, it was error to deny this claim with prejudice. Rather, Burke should have been provided a reasonable opportunity to amend his facially insufficient claim. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007).
Burke’s fourth claim is not a model of clarity but seems to allege that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the State’s motion in limine, which excluded an allegedly exculpatory surveillance video tape. The trial court denied the claim, finding that “[t]he Motion in Limine submitted by the State during the trial involved the limitation of comment by either Party on the fact that another person (a mutually available witness) was in the vehicle at the time of the incident.” Burke’s claim appears to concern a pretrial motion regarding a surveillance video tape, not the failure of a mutually available witness to testify. If so, the record attachments would not conclusively refute this claim. Burke’s fourth claim is imprecise and it is not clear whether such evidence actually exists or if the State sought to exclude it. Thus, Burke should be given leave to amend this claim as well.
For these reasons, on remand, the trial court shall give Burke thirty days to amend claims three and four of his rule 3.850 motion. If he fails to do so, the trial court can then deny those claims with prejudice.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
MONACO, C.J., ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brock v. Bowein, 99 So. 3d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…ion was moot. This appeal followed. III. DISCUSSION A. The Standard of Review The parties agree that the de novo standard of review applies to the circuit court’s order granting Mr. Bowein’s motion to dismiss. See Coleman v. 688 Skate Park, Inc., 40 So. 3d 867, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Al-Hakim v. Holder, 787 So. 2d 939, 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). B. The Sufficiency of the Amended Complaint Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.240 addresses the subject of interpleader. The rule provides, in pertinent part, as…
-
Brown v. State, 126 So. 3d 1242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…he “would have been imposed” test would apply)- Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to give Brown thirty days to raise the scoresheet error in a sworn, facially sufficient rule 3.850 motion. See Burke v. State, 40 So. 3d 867, 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (remanding for court to give defendant thirty days to amend rule 3.850 motion). In considering the rule 3.850 motion upon remand, the trial court must assess whether the same sentence would have been imposed had the scoreshe…
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)