STEPHEN BREWSTER
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.
When a defendant files an amended postconviction motion before the trial court rules on the original motion and before the two-year deadline expires, the trial court must consider the amendments on the merits rather than dismiss them as successive.
[1] An amended motion for postconviction relief filed before the trial court rules on the original motion and within the applicable two-year time period must be considered on…
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 intelligence“Where a defendant files an amended motion before the postconviction court rules on the original motion and before the two-year time limit has expired, it is error for the postconviction court not to consider the merits of the new allegations.”
Court's statement of the controlling legal standard governing amended postconviction motions.
Brewster filed a postconviction relief petition in October 2014, which was initially denied; the court's reversal and remand in Brewster v. State requ…
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 Successive Postconviction Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
STEPHEN BREWSTER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3196 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) )
Opinion filed July 13, 2018
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Thomas W. Krug, Judge.
Stephen Brewster, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
CRENSHAW, Judge.
Stephen Brewster appeals an order summarily disposing of his amended motion for postconviction relief and motion to supplement postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The postconviction court denied grounds six and thirteen of the amended motion because the claims of illegal sentence,
filed under rule 3.800(a), were refuted by the record or otherwise lacked merit. We affirm the denial of grounds six and thirteen without comment. The postconviction court struck grounds one through five, seven through twelve, and fourteen through seventeen of the amended motion as successive. This was error.
Where a defendant files an amended motion before the postconviction court rules on the original motion and before the two-year time limit has expired, it is error for the postconviction court not to consider the merits of the new allegations.
Pritchett v. State, 884 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing Gaskin v. State, 737
So. 2d 509, 518 (Fla. 1999), receded from on other grounds, Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2004)); cf. Hempstead v. State, 980 So. 2d 1254, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that amendments made to a motion after the postconviction court ruled on the original motion were improper, successive motions).
Here, the mandate in Mr. Brewster's direct appeal issued on May 7, 2015.
Mr. Brewster filed his initial "petition for writ of habeas corpus" on October 14, 2014, and a motion to supplement the petition on October 15, 2014. The postconviction court summarily denied the petition and supplement in an order dated March 9, 2015. In
Brewster v. State, 203 So. 3d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), this court reversed and remanded that order, along with four other postconviction court orders that ruled upon a total of seven motions for postconviction relief, finding that the postconviction court lacked jurisdiction to enter orders on the postconviction motions because the mandate in the direct appeal had not yet issued.
On January 30, 2017, Mr. Brewster filed the instant amended motion for postconviction relief, and on February 8, 2017, Mr. Brewster filed a supplement to the amended motion. The postconviction court did not start ruling on the remanded motions until July 5, 2017. The amended motion and the supplement were both filed before the postconviction court had ruled upon any of the remanded postconviction motions, and within rule 3.850(b)'s two-year time limit. Therefore, it was error for the postconviction court not to consider the claims raised in the amended motion and supplement. See
Pritchett, 884 So. 2d at 418.
Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for the postconviction court to address the merits of grounds one through five, seven through twelve, and fourteen through seventeen of Mr. Brewster's amended motion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
LaROSE, C.J., and LUCAS, 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)
- Hempstead v. State, 980 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Pelmon Arnold v. State, 884 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Drake Pritchett v. State, 884 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Brewster v. State, 203 So. 3d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)