RUSSELL ROY SMITH, 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 reversed and remanded the denial of a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion regarding ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to introduce mitigating evidence for a downward departure sentence, allowing the appellant one opportunity to amend his facially insufficient claim.
A defendant is entitled to one opportunity to amend a facially deficient Rule 3.850 claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to introduce mitigating evidence supporting a downward departure sentence.
[1] A trial court must grant a defendant one opportunity to amend a facially insufficient Rule 3.850 claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to introduce…
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 intelligenceRussell Roy Smith appealed the summary denial of his postconviction relief motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, asserting that…
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 Facially Sufficient Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial of ground two without further comment. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand the denial of ground one.
In ground one, the appellant asserts that counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce mitigating evidence in support of a request for a downward departure sentence. The appellant does not allege what evidence counsel should have introduced or why it would have led to him receiving a downward departure. However, the appellant is entitled to one opportunity to amend to state a facially sufficient claim. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla. 2007) (trial court must give defendant one opportunity to amend facially deficient claims); Thacker v. State, 990 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (reversing denial of facially insufficient claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to argue for a downward departure for trial court to grant an opportunity to amend pursuant to Spera). Thus, we affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part for the trial court to grant the appellant 60 days to file a facially sufficient claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce evidence in support of a downward departure sentence, if the appellant can do so in good faith.
Affirmed in part, Reversed and Remanded in part with directions.
BILBREY and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., and BEVERLY, THOMAS M„ Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Thacker v. State, 990 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)