KENNETH BALDWIN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Leave To Amend cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Kenneth Baldwin appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Without further comment, we affirm the summary denial of claim three of his motion and the nonsummary denial of claims one, four, and five of his motion.
In claim two, Baldwin asserted that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s comments in closing arguments in which the State allegedly vouched for the credibility of the State’s witnesses. The postconviction court denied this claim as conclusory because Baldwin failed to allege which comments made by the State were objectionable. We agree that Baldwin’s claim is conclusory and facially insufficient. However, in light of the recent opinion in Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla.2007), we reverse the portion of the postconviction court’s order denying this claim and remand for the postconviction court to strike this portion of Baldwin’s motion with leave to amend within a reasonable period of time.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
SILBERMAN, CANADY, and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Oquendo v. State, 2 So. 3d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…portunity to amend a legally insufficient post-conviction motion that fails to meet pleading requirements. Nevertheless, Spera did not expressly disturb the long line of precedent permitting summary denial of conclusory claims. Cf. Baldwin v. State, 978 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (reversing denial of conclusory claim and remanding with directions to strike the insufficient claim). The Florida Supreme Court’s decisions in Morgan and Doorbal, cited above, issued after Spera and did not give the postconvictio…
-
Howard v. State, 17 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…to which he objects and the basis for the objection. However, because the claim was facially insufficient, the court should have stricken the claim with leave to amend within a specific period of time. See Spera, 971 So. 2d at 761; Baldwin v. State, 978 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). In claim 30, Howard argued that the State knowingly used false testimony to obtain a conviction. Howard argues that the State should have known the witnesses’ testimony was false due to inconsistencies in pretrial statement…
-
Armistar Cole v. State, 89 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…ascertain whether the prosecutor’s opening statements were so prejudicial as to warrant relief. That said, Cole’s claim is facially insufficient because he does not specify which of the prosecutor’s remarks are objectionable. See Baldwin v. State, 978 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Because Cole’s claim was facially insufficient, the postconviction court should have dismissed the claim with leave for him to amend if he could do so in good faith. See Spera, 971 So. 2d at 761. Affirmed in part, reversed…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)