GARY WHITE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2013-06-26
No. 3D12-730
Before ROTHENBERG, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
116 So. 3d 597 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2013) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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

Gary White appeals a trial court's denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The Third District affirms the denial following an evidentiary hearing on White's amended motion.


Holding

The court affirmed the trial court's order denying postconviction relief, finding no error in the trial court's decision following the evidentiary hearing on White's ineffective assistance of counsel claim.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court should strike or dismiss a legally insufficient motion for postconviction relief with leave to amend, rather than summarily denying it.

[2] An order striking a motion for postconviction relief and granting leave to amend is a nonfinal, nonappealable order.

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

“where the motion is legally insufficient as pled, the court should not deny the motion, but rather strike or dismiss the motion, with leave to amend within a reasonable period of time”

Establishes the proper procedure for handling legally insufficient Rule 3.850 motions on remand

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

In 2010, White filed a Rule 3.850 motion claiming his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present defense witn…

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
EMAS, J.

EMAS, J.

Gary White appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

In 2010, White filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, White claimed, inter alia, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present defense witnesses at trial. The trial judge summarily denied the motion as legally insufficient. On appeal, we reversed the trial court’s summary denial, holding that, where the motion is legally insufficient as pled, the court should not deny the motion, but rather strike or dismiss the motion, with leave to amend within a reasonable period of time. See White v. State, 62 So.3d 1156, 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citing Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007)).1 Thus, an order that dismisses or strikes, as legally insufficient, a timely rule 3.850 motion, and provides the defendant with leave to amend the motion within a specific time, is a nonfinal, nonappealable order.2

Upon remand, the successor trial judge entered an order striking White’s initial motion for postconviction relief as legally insufficient, and granted leave to amend the motion with thirty days. Thereafter, White timely filed his amended motion and the trial court, determining that the amended motion was legally sufficient, held an evidentiary hearing on White’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Following the evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an order denying White’s motion.

Having reviewed the record, the hearing transcript, and the trial court’s order, we affirm the order denying relief.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Johnson v. State, 150 So. 3d 1288 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
    …he facial insufficiency of the motion, the trial court should have entered a nonfi-nal, nonappeable order dismissing the motion and allowing Johnson sixty days within which to file an amended motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2); White v. State, 116 So. 3d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). ' We therefore reverse the order denying the motion, remand the cause for the court to enter an order which dismisses the motion as insufficient and which allows Johnson sixty days in which to file an amended motion.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw