Calvin E. Suggs, Jr. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Calvin E. Suggs, Jr. v. State

142 So. 3d 957, 2014 WL 3434153, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10885

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 16, 2014

Docket4D14-373

StatusPublished

This text of 142 So. 3d 957 (Calvin E. Suggs, Jr. 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

Calvin E. Suggs, Jr. v. State, 142 So. 3d 957, 2014 WL 3434153, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10885 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order that dismissed with prejudice Appellant’s December 13, 2013 rule 3.850 motion. The court erred in finding the motion successive to a motion that Appellant filed under rule 3.800(a). The rule 3.800(a) motion did not seek relief under rule 3.850 and nothing in that motion indicates Appellant was attempting to amend the original rule 3.850 motion. See Oquendo v. State, 2 So.3d 1001, 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“As long as a postconviction movant has been afforded at least one opportunity to amend an insufficient claim, the trial court has discretion as to whether to permit any further amendment.”).

The trial court shall address the claims raised in this motion and, if appropriate, should consider appointing counsel to represent appellant in the postconviction proceedings. See Russo v. Akers, 724 So.2d 1151,1152-53 (Fla.1998); Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363,1365-66 (Fla.1979).

Reversed and Remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order that dismissed with prejudice Appellant’s December 13, 2013 rule 3.850 motion. The court erred in finding the motion successive to a motion that Appellant filed under rule 3.800(a). The rule 3.800(a) motion did not seek relief under rule 3.850 and nothing in that motion indicates Appellant was attempting to amend the original rule 3.850 motion. See Oquendo v. State, 2 So.3d 1001, 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“As long as a postconviction movant has been afforded at least one opportunity to amend an insufficient claim, the trial court has discretion as to whether to permit any further amendment.”).

The trial court shall address the claims raised in this motion and, if appropriate, should consider appointing counsel to represent appellant in the postconviction proceedings. See Russo v. Akers, 724 So.2d 1151,1152-53 (Fla.1998); Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363,1365-66 (Fla.1979).

Reversed and Remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 So. 3d 957, 2014 WL 3434153, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calvin-e-suggs-jr-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack