Watson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Watson v. State

732 So. 2d 469, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6693, 1999 WL 314137

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 19, 1999

DocketNo. 98-3351

StatusPublished

This text of 732 So. 2d 469 (Watson 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

Watson v. State, 732 So. 2d 469, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6693, 1999 WL 314137 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court erred when it denied appellant’s motion to amend his motion for post-conviction relief as untimely filed. In Bradford, v. State, 701 So.2d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), we held:

[W]hile the amended motion was not untimely in the jurisdictional sense, it was untimely from the standpoint of judicial administration since it was first presented at the evidentiary hearing. Nevertheless, in this circumstance, the trial court erred in failing to continue the evidentiary hearing on the original 3.850 motion until such time as the claims raised in the amended motion could also be considered.

Id. at 900.

As in Bradford, we reverse and remand this cause with instructions to the trial court to consider appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as alleged in his original and amended motion for post-conviction relief.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

STONE, C.J., DELL and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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