ROOSEVELT SCOTT, 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.
Scott appealed the trial court's summary denial of his pro se Rule 3.850 motion to vacate his conviction. The court affirmed the denial because Scott's motion failed to comply with Rule 3.850's requirements, specifically omitting whether he had filed previous postconviction motions, information necessary for the rule's successive motion bar.
The trial court correctly denied the motion because the omission of whether defendant had filed previous postconviction motions was a substantial failure to comply with Rule 3.850's requirements, as the rule prohibits the sentencing court from entertaining second or successive motions for similar relief.
[1] A motion to vacate under Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure must state whether previous post-conviction motions have been filed, as failure to do so is…
[2] A trial court may deny a Rule 3.850 motion for failure to comply with its requirements, including the omission of information regarding prior motions.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Since Rule 3.850 specifically provides that the sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motions for similar relief, the omission of this information cannot be considered inconsequential or nonsubstantial.”
Explains why the procedural defect was substantial and justified denial of the motion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott was represented by the Public Defender at trial, on a motion for new trial, and on a full appeal. After his unsuccessful appeal on the merits, S…
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 Competency Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
This is an appeal from the trial court’s summary denial of a pro se motion to vacate filed under Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The appeal predates the 1977 revision of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and is thus not governed by Rule 9.140(g).
The order appealed states that the 3.850 motion was denied because it was, “not in substantial compliance with the requirements of Rule 3.850 Fla.R.Crim.P., effective on July 1, 1977.” One clear omission from the motion was the failure to state whether defendant had filed any previous postcon-viction motions. Since Rule 3.850 specifically provides that the sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motions for similar relief, the omission of this information cannot be considered inconsequential or nonsubstantial.
Under these circumstances, instead of filing an appeal, defendant could have simply filed a new 3.850 motion and supplied the omission. The defendant/appellant’s brief before this court filed by the Public Defender now seeks leave to refile the motion before the trial court. We are not at all certain that leave of this court is necessary, but it is certainly granted. See McClendon v. Wainwright, 280 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). It is not our intention to require overly technical rule compliance in all pro se pleadings. However, Rule 3.850 was spe cifically designed for the unrepresented.1 Indeed, Rule 3.987 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure provides a complete fill-in-the-blanks type form to assist prisoners in preparing their 3.850 motions.
We find that the trial court correctly denied the motion to vacate herein for the reasons stated in the order and the order below is, therefore, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
CROSS and LETTS, JJ., concur. . See Committee Note to Rule 3.850. It should also be noted that the defendant was represented by the Public Defender at trial, on motion for new trial, and on a full appeal before this Court. It was only after his unsuccessful appeal on the merits that the defendant filed a pro se motion based on Rule 3.850. This 3.850 motion relied primarily on alleged incompetence of the Public Defender at trial. The pro se 3.850 motion was denied and once again, the Public Defender is representing the defendant on his second appeal before this court questioning the denial. The Public Defender here asserts and argues in favor of appellant’s incompetent counsel argument.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Catlett v. State, 367 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…y whether appellant had filed any previous Rule 3.850 motions (and, if so, how many). We have recently ruled the latter omission, by itself, warrants a summary denial since the motion is not in substantial compliance with Rule 3.850. Scott v. State, 364 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Our affirmance is without prejudice to file a more properly drafted motion for collateral relief predicated on the same grounds. As we emphasized in Scott, supra, the recently adopted Rule 3.987, Fla.R. Cr.P., provides a comple…
-
Groves v. State, 668 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…Rule 3.850 was erroneous, summary denial was affirmed, without prejudice for the appellant to file an amended motion below complying with the contents requirements of the rule); Mitchell v. State, 638 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Scott v. State, 364 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In the event the lower tribunal elects to deny any revised motion including substantially similar allegations of “affirmative misrepresentations” by trial counsel, the trial court should attach portions of the record that conc…
-
Evans v. State, 388 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…any. The order appealed is affirmed without prejudice to defendant’s filing a sufficient motion providing the required information raising the same substantive issues. See Catlett v. State, 367 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 4th [*1367] DCA 1979); Scott v. State, 364 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). AFFIRMED. FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and SHARP, JJ., concur. . Rule 9.140(g), Fla.R.App.P. . The rules provide a complete fill-in-the-blanks form to assist prisoners in preparing 3.850 motions.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McCLENDON v. Louie L. Wainwright, 280 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)