Rodney McGill v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rodney McGill v. State

157 So. 3d 433, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1423, 2015 WL 445548

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 4, 2015

Docket4D14-2977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 157 So. 3d 433 (Rodney McGill 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

Rodney McGill v. State, 157 So. 3d 433, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1423, 2015 WL 445548 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

*434 PER CURIAM.

We reverse and remand the trial court’s order that dismissed with prejudice appellant’s rule 3.850 motion. The trial court previously dismissed appellant’s motions and supplements without prejudice, and offered him at least two opportunities to fíle a sufficient and comprehensive motion within the fifty-page limitation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d). See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761 (Fla.2007). In response to the second dismissal, appellant filed a motion that exceeded fifty pages. It included forty-seven typewritten pages with the requisite oath which was followed by six additional handwritten pages. The trial court dismissed the motion with prejudice reasoning that appellant was either “unwilling or incapable of complying with this court’s orders.” Notably, the trial court did not reject the claims as legally insufficient.

While we understand the court’s frustration, we conclude that it should have reviewed the pages within the fifty-page limit as a motion that was “comprehensive, single, and sworn,” and stricken the pages that followed. See, e.g., Mancino v. State, 10 So.3d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (noting that rejection of motion based on form is not the same as a Spera rejection). The court’s failure to review the sufficiency of the motion amounted to an abuse of discretion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2) (providing a court with discretion to deny with prejudice where an amended motion is still insufficient).

We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and Remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., WARNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

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

*434 PER CURIAM.

We reverse and remand the trial court’s order that dismissed with prejudice appellant’s rule 3.850 motion. The trial court previously dismissed appellant’s motions and supplements without prejudice, and offered him at least two opportunities to fíle a sufficient and comprehensive motion within the fifty-page limitation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d). See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761 (Fla.2007). In response to the second dismissal, appellant filed a motion that exceeded fifty pages. It included forty-seven typewritten pages with the requisite oath which was followed by six additional handwritten pages. The trial court dismissed the motion with prejudice reasoning that appellant was either “unwilling or incapable of complying with this court’s orders.” Notably, the trial court did not reject the claims as legally insufficient.

While we understand the court’s frustration, we conclude that it should have reviewed the pages within the fifty-page limit as a motion that was “comprehensive, single, and sworn,” and stricken the pages that followed. See, e.g., Mancino v. State, 10 So.3d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (noting that rejection of motion based on form is not the same as a Spera rejection). The court’s failure to review the sufficiency of the motion amounted to an abuse of discretion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2) (providing a court with discretion to deny with prejudice where an amended motion is still insufficient).

We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and Remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., WARNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 So. 3d 433, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1423, 2015 WL 445548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodney-mcgill-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack