Armey v. State

880 So. 2d 1269, 2004 WL 1932759
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 1, 2004
Docket2D04-1837
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 880 So. 2d 1269 (Armey v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Armey v. State, 880 So. 2d 1269, 2004 WL 1932759 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

880 So.2d 1269 (2004)

John ARMEY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D04-1837.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 1, 2004.

CASANUEVA, Judge.

John Armey appeals an order dismissing his motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The circuit court found that Armey had failed to properly swear to the motion and dismissed it without prejudice for Armey to refile "a motion which complies with the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850." As the circuit erred on this point, we reverse.

At the end of his rule 3.850 motion, Armey executed the same "unnotarized oath" set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.987, stating, "Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing motion and that [all] the facts stated in it are true." The circuit court overlooked the fact that section 92.525(2), Florida Statutes (2001), allows an unnotarized oath, in the form used by the defendant in this case. The Florida Supreme Court specifically authorized this procedure in State v. Shearer, 628 So.2d 1102 (Fla.1993). The standard form of the rule 3.850 motion now gives an inmate the option of executing a notarized oath or an unnotarized oath. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.987. Under either alternative, the motion is sworn under penalties of perjury. Shearer, 628 So.2d at 1103.

Because Armey's motion was properly sworn to, we reverse the order of dismissal and remand to the circuit court for further consideration. We express no opinion on the merits of Armey's motion.

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sharkey v. State
933 So. 2d 1265 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Raley v. State
884 So. 2d 501 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Williams v. State
884 So. 2d 374 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Reed v. State
880 So. 2d 1269 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
880 So. 2d 1269, 2004 WL 1932759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armey-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.