GONZALO ESTRADA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rule 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
On Remand from the Supreme Court
PER CURIAM.
Gonzalo Estrada appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion arguing that he should have been allowed to amend his motion before it was denied as legally insufficient. We initially affirmed the circuit court’s order with a citation to our decision in Spera v. State, 923 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Estrada sought review in the Florida Supreme Court, and his case was stayed pending the supreme court’s decision in Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla.2007). Following its decision in Spera, the supreme court remanded this case for reconsideration. Estrada v. State, 980 So. 2d 1053 (Fla.2008). On remand to this court, the state has no objection to remanding this case to the trial court to allow Estrada to amend his 3.850 motion.
Accordingly, the circuit court’s order is reversed and this case is remanded for the trial court to strike Estrada’s motion with leave to amend pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla.2007).
STONE, POLEN and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Punsky v. Clay Cnty. Sheriff's Off. & Scibal Ins. Grp., 18 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…under Caldwell to rebut the statutory presumption. Caldwell, 372 So. 2d at 441. Of course, when we review a JCC’s findings involving the burden of clear and convincing evidence, our standard of review is unchanged. Matrix Employee Leasing v. Pierce, 985 So. 2d 631, 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). In Pierce, a workers’ compensation case, we quoted with approval from McKesson Drug Co. v. Williams, 706 So. 2d 352, 353-54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), where we explained: In civil cases involving the burden of clear and convinci…
-
I.T. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 277 So. 3d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…pendently whether the evidence as a whole satisfies the clear and convincing standard, but to determine whether the record contains competent[,] substantial evidence to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard.” Matrix Emp. Leasing v. Pierce, 985 So. 2d 631, 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (quoting McKesson Drug Co. v. Williams, 706 So. 2d 352, 353-54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)). narrowly-tailored’ and ‘least intrusive’ manner consistent with the object to be accomplished.” N.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 36…
-
Altman Contractors & N. River Ins. Co. v. Dynelle Gibson, 63 So. 3d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…as constructed a burden of proof for mold exposure claims which is artificial, illusory, and practically unachievable and represents a burden which far exceeds that imposed by the Legislature. Further, the case of Matrix Employee Leasing v. Pierce, 985 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), cited by the majority for its conclusion, is easily distinguishable from this case. In that case, the somewhat equivocal opinion given by the claimant’s expert as to the particular ailment contracted by the claimant was in large…
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)
- Spera v. State, 923 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Levine v. Hirshon, 980 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 2008)