FLOYD BROOKS, 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.
A movant has the right to amend a postconviction relief motion at any time within the two-year limit before the court rules on the merits.
Floyd Brooks appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, arguing the trial court failed to consider his timely motion to amen…
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
Floyd Brooks appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. His claim is that the trial court failed to consider his timely-filed motion to amend that motion.
A rule 3.850 movant has the right to amend or supplement a motion at any time within the two-year time limit as long as the trial court has not yet ruled on the merits of the motion. Samuels v. State, 973 So.2d 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Hyacinthe v. State, 940 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (citing Gaskin v. State, 737 So.2d 509 (Fla.1999), receded from on other grounds by Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579 (Fla.2004)). See also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(e) (effective July 1, 2013).1 In responding to this court’s order to show cause, the state agrees that the matter should be remanded to allow the amendment.
Reversed and remanded.
CIKLIN, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2004)
- Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1999)
- Nedor Hyacinthe v. State, 940 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Samuels v. State, 973 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- F.S. v. State, 973 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)