Watts v. State

27 So. 3d 119, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 20563, 2009 WL 5150248
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Watts v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 973 So. 2d 1271
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 31, 2009·No. 5D09-1670·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Samuel Watts appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part and reverse in part. With respect to claims 5,13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 25 and 26, we agree with the trial court that Watts’s claims were insufficiently pled. However, under Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007), we are compelled to reverse to allow Watts an opportunity to amend his insufficiently pled claims. On remand, Watts shall have a reasonable time, not to exceed thirty days, within which to replead those claims. In all other respects, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

ORFINGER, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

Watts v. State, 27 So. 3d 119, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 20563, 2009 WL 5150248 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

27 So. 3d 119 (Watts v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Spera v. State
971 So. 2d 754 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2007)