Headley v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Headley v. State

201 So. 3d 653, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 1415

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 3, 2016

Docket3D15-2570

StatusPublished

This text of 201 So. 3d 653 (Headley 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

Headley v. State, 201 So. 3d 653, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 1415 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

SUAREZ, C.J.

On July 18, 2013 Joan Marie Headley timely filed a motion for post-conviction relief. On December 12, 2014 the trial court entered an Order in which she was granted 60 days within which to amend the claims raised in grounds 1 and 2B of her motion. That Order directed the state to respond to one claim and denied all other grounds. The state eventually provided the ordered response. On October 2, 2015, after noting that Headley had failed to amend her claims, the trial court denied her remaining claims.

In this appeal, Headley claims that she did not receive notice of the December 2014 Order directing her to amend the claims made in grounds 1 and 2B of her motion and that she ought to be provided the opportunity to amend those claims. Consistent with the ruling in Jones v. State, 88 So.3d 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), we think that in these unusual circumstances it is appropriate to provide Headley with the opportunity to amend her claims made in grounds 1 and 2B to attempt to state viable claims. Accordingly, we affirm both the December 14, 2014 Order and the October 2, 2015 Order, but do so without prejudice to Headley to amend solely the claims made in grounds 1 and 2B of her motion within 30 days of the date that this opinion becomes final. If Headley files the amended motion as directed in this opinion, it shall not be considered successive. *654 The rulings as to all other claims are affirmed.

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

SUAREZ, C.J.

On July 18, 2013 Joan Marie Headley timely filed a motion for post-conviction relief. On December 12, 2014 the trial court entered an Order in which she was granted 60 days within which to amend the claims raised in grounds 1 and 2B of her motion. That Order directed the state to respond to one claim and denied all other grounds. The state eventually provided the ordered response. On October 2, 2015, after noting that Headley had failed to amend her claims, the trial court denied her remaining claims.

In this appeal, Headley claims that she did not receive notice of the December 2014 Order directing her to amend the claims made in grounds 1 and 2B of her motion and that she ought to be provided the opportunity to amend those claims. Consistent with the ruling in Jones v. State, 88 So.3d 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), we think that in these unusual circumstances it is appropriate to provide Headley with the opportunity to amend her claims made in grounds 1 and 2B to attempt to state viable claims. Accordingly, we affirm both the December 14, 2014 Order and the October 2, 2015 Order, but do so without prejudice to Headley to amend solely the claims made in grounds 1 and 2B of her motion within 30 days of the date that this opinion becomes final. If Headley files the amended motion as directed in this opinion, it shall not be considered successive. *654 The rulings as to all other claims are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 So. 3d 653, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 1415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/headley-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack