TRAVIS B. JACKSON, 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.
Travis Jackson appeals the circuit court's order denying in part his original Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion (ineffective assistance of counsel). The court holds that the circuit court erred by ruling on the original motion rather than the amended motion Jackson filed nine days before the ruling, since a movant has the right to amend at any time before the trial court rules on the merits.
Yes. The court held that under the applicable law at the time, a Rule 3.850 movant had the right to amend or supplement a motion at any time within the two-year time limit as long as the trial court had not yet ruled on the merits. Therefore, the circuit court should have ruled on the amended motion rather than the original motion.
[1] A circuit court errs by ruling on a defendant's original motion for postconviction relief when the defendant has filed an amended motion prior to the court's ruling.
[2] A rule 3.850 movant has the right to amend or supplement a motion at any time within the two-year time limit, provided the trial court has not yet ruled on the merits of…
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“[a] rule 3.850 movant [had] the right to amend or supplement a motion at any time within the two-year time limit as long as the trial court [had] not yet ruled on the merits of the motion.”
Establishes the central legal principle that Jackson had a right to amend his motion before the trial court ruled on its merits, cited from Samuels v. State.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson's direct appeal was affirmed and mandate issued on December 30, 2011. He filed his original Rule 3.850 motion on February 17, 2012. Nearly one…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals from the circuit court’s order summarily denying in part his original Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. We remand for the circuit court to rule on the defendant’s amended rule 3.850 motion, which the defendant filed before the court ruled on the defendant’s original rule 3.850 motion.
On December 30, 2011, this court issued its mandate upon affirmance of the defendant’s direct appeal, Jackson v. State, 75 So.3d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (Table).
On February 17, 2012, the defendant filed his original rule 3.850 motion. The original motion was timely filed based upon the grounds which the defendant raised. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b) (2011).
On January 29, 2013, nearly one year after the defendant filed his original rule 3.850 motion, the defendant filed his amended rule 3.850 motion. The amended motion also was timely filed based upon the grounds which the defendant raised. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b) (2011).
On February 7, 2013, just nine days after the defendant filed his amended rule 3.850 motion, the circuit court ruled on the defendant’s original rule 3.850 motion.
On appeal, the defendant argues that the circuit court erred in ruling on his *410original rule 3.850 motion rather than ruling on his amended rule 3.850 motion.
We agree with the defendant. We presume that the circuit court may have been unaware of the filing of the defendant’s amended rule 3.850 motion at the time it ruled on the defendant’s original rule 3.850 motion. Nevertheless, under the law in effect when the defendant filed the amended motion, “[a] rule 3.850 movant [had] the right to amend or supplement a motion at any time within the two-year time limit as long as the trial court [had] not yet ruled on the merits of the motion.” Samuels v. State, 973 So.2d 662, 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citation omitted).1
Based on the foregoing, we remand for the circuit court to: (1) vacate its February 7, 2013 order on the defendant’s original rule 3.850 motion; and (2) rule on the defendant’s amended rule 3.850 motion.
Remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CIKLIN, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 112 So. 3d 1234 (Fla. 2013)
- Samuels v. State, 973 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- F.S. v. State, 973 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)