CHARLES KELLY, 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.
The court affirmed the denial of three postconviction relief claims but reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to address seven ineffective assistance of counsel claims presented in the supporting facts section of the motion.
A trial court must address all claims for relief raised in a postconviction motion, including ineffective assistance of counsel claims presented in supporting facts sections, and must allow amendment if claims are facially insufficient.
[1] A trial court must address all claims for relief raised in a postconviction motion, including those presented in supporting facts sections, and must provide an opportunit…
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 intelligenceCharles Kelly appealed the trial court's summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion, which contained three claims in an "Arguments"…
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 Motion Practice cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Charles Kelly, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without comment the denial of claims one through three that were raised in the section of his motion entitled “Arguments.” However, appellant also raised seven claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a preceding section entitled “Supporting Facts.” The trial court’s order failed to address these claims. Appellant filed a motion for rehearing in which he made it clear that the items in his “Supporting Facts” section were, in fact, separate claims for relief. The trial court denied rehearing, did not address the additional claims, and did not allow appellant to amend his motion. We, therefore, reverse as to the ineffective assistance of counsel claims contained in the “Supporting Facts” section and remand for the trial court to consider them. See Purse v. State, 185 So.3d 627, 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (citing Gonzalez v. State, 829 So.2d 323, 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)); Bridges v. State, 81 So.3d 616, 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). If the trial court determines that these claims are facially insufficient, appellant should be given an opportunity to amend them pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla. 2007).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.
WOLF, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Purse v. State, 185 So. 3d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
- Taiwan P. Smalls v. State, 829 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Bridges v. State, 81 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)