DONALD EUGENE REYBURN
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 postconviction court must allow a defendant the opportunity to amend a potentially viable Rule 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel when the defendant has not previously had such an opportunity and demonstrates that counsel failed to investigate and compel production of documents necessary to file a motion to suppress.
[1] A claim of government misconduct not cognizable under rule 3.850 cannot be amended into a viable claim under that rule.
[2] A defendant should be given the opportunity to amend a rule 3.850 motion to allege the requisite prejudice when the motion is timely filed, contains a potentially viable…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Because the motion was timely filed, contained a potentially viable claim, and Reyburn had not previously been given an opportunity to amend, Reyburn should have been given the opportunity to amend this claim to show that he was prejudiced by trial counsel's inactions.”
The court's explanation for why the postconviction court erred in denying Ground B
Donald Eugene Reyburn filed a postconviction motion under Rule 3.850 raising two grounds: (1) government misconduct for failing to provide the probabl…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
Case No. 5D23-2943 LT Case Nos. 2018-CF-000073 2018-CF-000074 _____________________________
DONALD EUGENE REYBURN,
Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County. Stephen E. Toner, Jr., Judge. Donald Eugene Reyburn, Bushnell, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Stephen R. Putnam, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
March 22, 2024 HARRIS, J.
Donald Eugene Reyburn timely challenges the postconviction court’s summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Reyburn alleged two grounds for relief. In ground A, he alleged that the government engaged in misconduct by not filing and/or providing
him with the probable cause affidavit to support the search warrant of his home, the search warrant, the search warrant return, and log of items seized during execution of the search warrant. In ground B, Reyburn alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective because he refused to investigate and compel the trial court to make available to him the probable cause affidavit to support the search warrant, the search warrant return, and log of items seized so he could file a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the execution of the search and used to charge him with crimes.
The postconviction court denied Reyburn’s motion on the merits. On ground A, it found Reyburn’s claim was not cognizable under rule 3.850. On ground B, it found Reyburn failed to demonstrate prejudice. Reyburn timely filed a motion for rehearing, arguing that the postconviction court should not have denied his motion on the merits but should have allowed him to amend his claims. The postconviction court denied the motion for rehearing.
The postconviction court did not err when it denied ground A because the alleged government misconduct could not be amended into a viable claim under rule 3.850. See King v. State, 230 So. 3d 179, 180–81 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). However, we agree with Reyburn that the postconviction court erred when it denied ground B because it was a potentially viable claim. Because the motion was timely filed, contained a potentially viable claim, and Reyburn had not previously been given an opportunity to amend, Reyburn should have been given the opportunity to amend this claim to show that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s inactions. See Minix v. State, 259 So. 3d 927, 929 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (holding that defendant should have been given opportunity to amend his rule 3.850 motion to allege the requisite prejudice required under Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985)) (citing Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2) & Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754, 761 (Fla. 2007)).
We therefore affirm the denial of ground A but reverse and remand the denial of ground B for the postconviction court to allow Reyburn to amend.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, REMANDED. EISNAUGLE and SOUD, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985)
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Minix v. State, 259 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)