JOAN MARIE HEADLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 affirmed denial of post-conviction relief but allowed appellant to amend two specific grounds within 30 days without the amendment being deemed successive, based on lack of notice of the trial court's amendment order.
A defendant who did not receive notice of a trial court order directing amendment of post-conviction relief claims must be given an opportunity to amend those claims.
[1] A defendant who fails to receive notice of a trial court order directing amendment of post-conviction relief claims is entitled to an opportunity to amend those claims, a…
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 intelligenceJoan Marie Headley filed a post-conviction relief motion on July 18, 2013. The trial court issued an order on December 12, 2014 granting her 60 days t…
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 Amendment Of Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
On July 18, 2013 Joan Marie Headley timely filed a motion for post-conviction relief. On December 12, 2014 the trial court entered an Order in which she was granted 60 days within which to amend the claims raised in grounds 1 and 2B of her motion. That Order directed the state to respond to one claim and denied all other grounds. The state eventually provided the ordered response. On October 2, 2015, after noting that Headley had failed to amend her claims, the trial court denied her remaining claims.
In this appeal, Headley claims that she did not receive notice of the December 2014 Order directing her to amend the claims made in grounds 1 and 2B of her motion and that she ought to be provided the opportunity to amend those claims. Consistent with the ruling in Jones v. State, 88 So.3d 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), we think that in these unusual circumstances it is appropriate to provide Headley with the opportunity to amend her claims made in grounds 1 and 2B to attempt to state viable claims. Accordingly, we affirm both the December 14, 2014 Order and the October 2, 2015 Order, but do so without prejudice to Headley to amend solely the claims made in grounds 1 and 2B of her motion within 30 days of the date that this opinion becomes final. If Headley files the amended motion as directed in this opinion, it shall not be considered successive. *654The rulings as to all other claims are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Stevon L. Guilford v. State, 88 So. 3d 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Al Jones v. State, 88 So. 3d 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)