ESCOBAR-GUILLEN v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

ESCOBAR-GUILLEN v. State

53 So. 3d 393, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1077, 2011 WL 361437

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 4, 2011

Docket5D10-2454

StatusPublished

This text of 53 So. 3d 393 (ESCOBAR-GUILLEN 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

ESCOBAR-GUILLEN v. State, 53 So. 3d 393, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1077, 2011 WL 361437 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

SAWAYA, J.

Jose Escobar-Guillen appeals the trial court’s order that summarily denied his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief in which he alleged a Miranda 1 violation and coerced confession. Pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 755 (Fla.2007), we reverse. We do so because we are unable to conclude that the facial deficiencies of these claims, referenced by the trial court, cannot be remedied by amendment. See Oliver v. State, 10 So.3d 704 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).

Accordingly, the order is reversed and this case remanded with instructions that the trial court strike the motion with leave to amend in a specified time consistent with the parameters identified in Spera. See Oliver; Parsons v. State, 981 So.2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PALMER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

1

. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

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

SAWAYA, J.

Jose Escobar-Guillen appeals the trial court’s order that summarily denied his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief in which he alleged a Miranda 1 violation and coerced confession. Pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 755 (Fla.2007), we reverse. We do so because we are unable to conclude that the facial deficiencies of these claims, referenced by the trial court, cannot be remedied by amendment. See Oliver v. State, 10 So.3d 704 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).

Accordingly, the order is reversed and this case remanded with instructions that the trial court strike the motion with leave to amend in a specified time consistent with the parameters identified in Spera. See Oliver; Parsons v. State, 981 So.2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PALMER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

1

. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 So. 3d 393, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1077, 2011 WL 361437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/escobar-guillen-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack