STEVEN TIPPINS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2010-12-17
No. 5D09-3961
ORFINGER, LAWSON, and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
49 So. 3d 864 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2010)

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.

Synopsis

The appellate court reviewed an order denying a motion for post-conviction relief. The court affirmed most of the lower court's decision but reversed and remanded on one specific ground, allowing the appellant an opportunity to amend his motion regarding ineffective assistance of counsel.


Holding

The appellate court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying ground eight of the motion for post-conviction relief, as Tippins should have been granted leave to amend that specific ground. The court found no error regarding the other issues raised on appeal.


Headnotes

[1] A post-conviction relief movant should be granted leave to amend a ground for relief that is legally insufficient if the State concedes error as to that specific ground a…

[2] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to procure a witness's testimony requires alleging the witness's identity, the substance of the testimony, how th…

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“The State concedes error with respect to ground eight, agreeing with Tippins that he should have been granted leave to amend with respect to ground eight only, and with respect to Attorney Candice Hawthorne only.”

This quote establishes the State's agreement with the appellant on a key issue, influencing the appellate court's decision.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Steven Tippins appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, arguing the trial court erred by not allowing him to amend certain ground…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Steven Tippins timely appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction relief. He argues that the trial court erred in failing to give him an opportunity to amend grounds one, four, five and eight of his motion for postconviction relief, and that the trial court further erred in denying his motion to disqualify. The State concedes error with respect to ground eight, agreeing with Tippins that he should have been granted leave to amend with respect to ground eight only, and with respect to Attorney Candice Hawthorne only.1 See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761 (Fla.2007). Finding no trial court error with respect to any other issue on appeal, we reverse only as to the summary denial of ground eight, affirm as to all other issues, and remand with instructions that Tippins be granted a reasonable time within which to file an amended post-conviction motion relating to Attorney Hawthorne’s representation, as to ground eight only.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

ORFINGER, LAWSON, and EVANDER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw