JACKIE BOYD SWAIN, 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.
Appellant Swain appealed the trial court's denial of his pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence because the motion failed to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that courts must refuse to receive or act upon non-compliant motions, but recommended procedures for returning deficient motions to the movant.
The trial court did not err in refusing to receive the motion based on its non-compliance with Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. Courts must refuse to receive any such motion that fails to substantially comply with the rule's minimum prerequisites, but should return the motion to the movant with a statement of reasons for the deficiencies.
[1] A trial court must refuse to receive a motion for post-conviction relief that does not substantially comply with the minimum prerequisites set forth in Fla.R.Crim.P. …
[2] Fla.R.Crim.P. …
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Rule 3.850 mandates that the trial court refuse to receive any motion which is not in substantial compliance with those minimum prerequisites.”
Establishes the mandatory nature of the procedural requirement that trial courts reject non-compliant motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence on August 25, 1977. The trial court entered an order denying the motion and f…
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 To Vacate, Set Aside Or Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant filed his pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence on August 25, 1977. The trial court entered an Order Denying Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence and advised the appellant of his right to appeal that order. In said order, the court specifically found that the motion was not in substantial compliance with Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 (as amended, effective July 1, 1977) and noted that pursuant to said Rule, the court refused to receive or act upon the motion.
Rule 3.850 provides that a motion to vacate, set aside, or-correct a judgment or sentence shall include the following:
(a) The judgment or sentence under attack and the court which rendered the same;
(b) Whether there was an appeal from the judgment or sentence and the disposition thereof;
(c) Whether a previous post-conviction motion has been filed, and if so, how many;
(d) The nature of the relief sought;
(e) A brief statement of the facts (rather than conclusions) relied upon in support of the motion.
Further, Rule 3.850 mandates that the trial court refuse to receive any motion which is not in substantial compliance with those minimum prerequisites.
The trial court did not err in finding that the appellant’s motion failed to substantially comply with Fla.R.Crim.P, 3.850. Therefore, the order appealed from is affirmed. Certainly, the appellant may file a motion which substantially complies with Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 so that a decision on the merits of his motion can be reached.1
Where the court refuses to receive or act upon a motion for post-conviction relief because the motion fails to substantially comply with Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, in accordance with the rule, the court should instruct the clerk, without order, to return said motion to the movant as unacceptable in that it fails to substantially comply with the Rule. Although not specifically required by the Rule, we would recommend that the motion returned to the movant be accompanied with a statement of the reason for its return setting forth which portions of the Rule were not complied with.
AFFIRMED.
McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MELVIN, JJ., concur. . We note that Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 has been recently amended and that Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.987 now provides a model form for a Motion for Post Conviction Relief [effective January 1. 1978; see 353 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1977)].
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Willey v. State, 403 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…wer court’s dismissal of appellant’s Motion for Mitigation and Sentence Reduction without prejudice to file a more properly drafted motion pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. See Catlett v. State, 367 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), and Swain v. State, 355 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Affirmed. SHAW and THOMPSON, JJ., and WOODIE A. LILES (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Blakely v. State, 362 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…. This is an appeal from the denial of appellant’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 on the basis that the motion was not in compliance with the rule. Pursuant to Swain v. State, 355 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1978), the denial of the motion was, in essence, a refusal to entertain the motion and we treat it as such. We, therefore, affirm without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a proper motion and obtain a ruling on the merits. AF…
-
Tower v. O.J. Phillips, 979 F.2d 807 (11th Cir. 1992)…courts have held that petitions not in substantial compliance with the requirements of Rule 3.850 should be returned to the movant accompanied by a statement setting forth the reasons why the motion does not comply with the rule. See Swain v. State, 355 So. 2d 865, 866 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978). In this case, the State conceded at oral argument that it has been unable to find evidence of any action taken by the Florida courts in response to Towler’s motions. At the time Towler filed his habeas petition in federa…
Authorities Cited
- In re Fla. Rules OF Crim. Procedure (Rule 3.850-Model Form for Post Conviction Relief), 353 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1977)