Jewson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jewson v. State

688 So. 2d 968, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1418, 1997 WL 76130

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 25, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2456

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 688 So. 2d 968 (Jewson 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

Jewson v. State, 688 So. 2d 968, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1418, 1997 WL 76130 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, an inmate of the state correctional system, seeks review of a final order denying his motion requesting post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied the motion as legally insufficient because it “fail[ed] to assert whether a previous post conviction motion has been filed, and if so, how many and if previous motions have been filed, the reason the claims in the present motion were not previously raised.” However, before the trial court entered its order denying relief, appellant had filed a properly sworn document (which we treat as an amendment to his initial motion) in which he asserted that he had filed no previous motions seeking postconviction relief. This document cured the deficiency which was of concern to the trial court, and the trial court should have addressed the merits of the motion. Accordingly, we reverse, and remand with directions that the trial court address the merits of appellant’s motion.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, an inmate of the state correctional system, seeks review of a final order denying his motion requesting post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied the motion as legally insufficient because it “fail[ed] to assert whether a previous post conviction motion has been filed, and if so, how many and if previous motions have been filed, the reason the claims in the present motion were not previously raised.” However, before the trial court entered its order denying relief, appellant had filed a properly sworn document (which we treat as an amendment to his initial motion) in which he asserted that he had filed no previous motions seeking postconviction relief. This document cured the deficiency which was of concern to the trial court, and the trial court should have addressed the merits of the motion. Accordingly, we reverse, and remand with directions that the trial court address the merits of appellant’s motion.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

688 So. 2d 968, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1418, 1997 WL 76130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jewson-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack