CHARLES J. CAMPBELL, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed dismissal of postconviction motion where defendant's oath, though not identical to the prescribed form, was virtually identical to the required oath under Rule 3.987 and therefore satisfied procedural requirements.
An oath that is virtually identical to the form oath required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987 renders a postconviction motion procedurally sufficient despite minor deviations from the exact prescribed language.
[1] An oath in a postconviction motion that is virtually identical to the form oath prescribed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987 satisfies the oath requirement of R…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing motion and that the facts stated in it are true.”
The form oath required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987 in the absence of a notary.
Charles J. Campbell filed a postconviction motion under Rule 3.850 that included an oath stating 'I hereby state under penalty of perjury the foregoin…
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 Postconviction Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
Charles J. Campbell appeals the order dismissing his postconviction motion for failure to contain the proper oath. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(c). We reverse.
The postconviction court dismissed Campbell’s motion for failure to contain the correct oath without prejudice to file a motion with the proper oath within the time limitations of rule 3.850(b). But the oath Campbell signed in his motion is virtually identical to the oath required in the absence of a notary by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987: “Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing motion and that the facts stated in it are true.” In his motion, Campbell included the following oath: “I hereby state under penalty of perjury the foregoing is based upon true facts, [sic] oath pursuant to 92.525 FSA done this 13 day of May 2012.” Because the oath Campbell signed is virtually identical to the form oath, the posteonviction court erred in dismissing his motion based on an insufficient oath. See Braden v. State, 779 So.2d 365, 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that oath that was virtually identical to the rule 3.987 form oath rendered postconviction motion procedurally sufficient).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the postconviction court consider Campbell’s rule 3.850 motion on its merits.
Reversed and remanded.
KELLY and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wiendl v. Wiendl (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
-
Azzam v. Alejandro Manuel Diaz De La Portilla (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Braden v. State, 779 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)