Gibson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gibson v. State

147 So. 3d 611, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 13997, 2014 WL 4426358

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 10, 2014

DocketNo. 4D14-0012

StatusPublished

This text of 147 So. 3d 611 (Gibson 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

Gibson v. State, 147 So. 3d 611, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 13997, 2014 WL 4426358 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order summarily denying appellant’s rule 8.850 motion for postconviction relief.

In Gibson v. State, 122 So.3d 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), we remanded a prior order that denied appellant’s motion without explanation or attachments. On remand, the State filed a response which argued that the motion failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419 (Fla.2013). The trial court denied the motion based on the State’s response which argued that appellant should be granted sixty days to file an amended motion. The trial court provided no explanation other than to incorporate the State’s response into the order of denial.

This matter is remanded for the trial court to follow Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(f)(2) and enter an order allowing appellant sixty days to file an amended motion if he can do so in good faith. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007).

Reversed and remanded.

GROSS, 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 trial court’s order summarily denying appellant’s rule 8.850 motion for postconviction relief.

In Gibson v. State, 122 So.3d 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), we remanded a prior order that denied appellant’s motion without explanation or attachments. On remand, the State filed a response which argued that the motion failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419 (Fla.2013). The trial court denied the motion based on the State’s response which argued that appellant should be granted sixty days to file an amended motion. The trial court provided no explanation other than to incorporate the State’s response into the order of denial.

This matter is remanded for the trial court to follow Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(f)(2) and enter an order allowing appellant sixty days to file an amended motion if he can do so in good faith. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007).

Reversed and remanded.

GROSS, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 So. 3d 611, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 13997, 2014 WL 4426358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack