ESCOBAR-GUILLEN v. State

53 So. 3d 393, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1077, 2011 WL 361437
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 4, 2011·No. 5D10-2454·Published

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

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

53 So. 3d 393 (ESCOBAR-GUILLEN v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (Supreme Court, 1966)
Parsons v. State
981 So. 2d 1249 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Oliver v. State
10 So. 3d 704 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Spera v. State
971 So. 2d 754 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2007)