DOUGLAS EDDIE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 trial court errs by summarily denying a rule 3.850 motion without explanation, without ordering a state response, and without providing the movant an opportunity to file an amended motion if the denial is based on legal insufficiency.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by summarily denying a rule 3.850 motion without providing written explanation, ordering a response from the state, or attaching relev…
[2] When a rule 3.850 motion is denied based on legal insufficiency, the trial court must provide the movant an opportunity to file an amended motion before entering final de…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“it was error for the trial court to summarily deny the motion 'without explanation, without ordering a state response, and with no record attachments.'”
Citing Thompson v. State, 202 So. 3d 927, 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
Douglas Eddie filed a rule 3.850 motion, which the trial court summarily denied without explanation, without ordering a state response, and without at…
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 Opportunity To Amend Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
DOUGLAS EDDIE,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 4D17-2153
[January 10, 2018]
Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael A. Usan, Judge; L.T. Case No. 14002032CF10A.
Douglas Eddie, Crawfordville, pro se. No brief filed for appellee. PER CURIAM. We reverse and remand the order denying appellant’s rule 3.850 motion because it was error for the trial court to summarily deny the motion “without explanation, without ordering a state response, and with no record attachments.” Thompson v. State, 202 So. 3d 927, 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). The State contends that the motion is legally insufficient and the trial court’s order should be affirmed without prejudice. However, to the extent the denial of the motion was based on its legal insufficiency, the trial court erred by failing to provide appellant an opportunity to file an amended motion. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2); see Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754, 761 (Fla. 2007); Nottage v. State, 61 So. 3d 1231, 1232-33 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. GROSS, TAYLOR and FORST, JJ., concur.
2
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Nottage v. State, 61 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Talvin Thompson v. State, 202 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)