Emmanuel J. Breadon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Emmanuel J. Breadon v. State

207 So. 3d 253, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11170

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 22, 2016

Docket5D16-931

StatusPublished

This text of 207 So. 3d 253 (Emmanuel J. Breadon 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

Emmanuel J. Breadon v. State, 207 So. 3d 253, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11170 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Emmanuel Breadon appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm, except as to the claim that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to explore and/or raise an insanity defense. The trial court correctly found that Breadon had failed to allege that he was, in fact, insane at the time of the offense. See Luckey v. State, 979 So.2d 353, 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). However, rather than summarily denying the claim because of its facial insufficiency, the trial court should have afforded Breadon the opportunity to amend. Id. at 355; see also Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007).

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.

TORPY, EVANDER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Emmanuel Breadon appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm, except as to the claim that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to explore and/or raise an insanity defense. The trial court correctly found that Breadon had failed to allege that he was, in fact, insane at the time of the offense. See Luckey v. State, 979 So.2d 353, 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). However, rather than summarily denying the claim because of its facial insufficiency, the trial court should have afforded Breadon the opportunity to amend. Id. at 355; see also Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007).

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.

TORPY, EVANDER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 So. 3d 253, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emmanuel-j-breadon-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack